Last Christmas I asked for the book Straight Talk about Mental Tests by Arthur Jensen and today was so beautiful I just sat by the lake all day reading it. I highly recommend this book to my readers. Unlike Jensen’s other books which are written for people with graduate degrees, this book is written for laymen, and while some readers may want something a lot more up to date, it’s remarkable how little the science has changed since 1981..
But one passage in particular caught my attention. It was about racial differences in Piaget tests. Piaget tests are remarkably good tests of IQ even though they come from a totally different branch of psychology and were not created with IQ in mind. Jensen writes:
This is the first time I ever heard of Arctic people scoring higher than whites on Piaget tests. Why didn’t Lynn mention this in his book? Instead he claimed that on a scale where whites average 100, Northeast Asians average 105 and Arctic people average 91. However if what Jensen says is true about Piaget tests, they would seem to be right up there with their Northeast Asian cousins and averaging 105 which makes sense given their huge brains and cold ancestral environment.
If true, this is excellent news because it suggests that an average IQ of 105 was present in the common ancestor of Arctic people and Northeast Asians which would mean the fully modern human mind pre-dated civilization.
This is the exact opposite of what scholars like Cochran, Harpending, John Hawks, and Peter Frost argue, which is that adaptive evolution increased a hundred fold in the last 10,000 years or so. Instead it is more consistent with what Gould and Richard Klein’s view that important evolution essentially stopped in the Upper Paleolithic.
From an Ayn Randian perspective, I find it far more romantic to think that after thousands of years ice age, triumphant man emerged fully modern from the wilderness to create civilization, then to think we were savages transformed into humanity by the modern world.
I like the idea of biological evolution reaching an end point and then cultural evolution taking over, but until Jensen’s uncited claims are verified, no strong conclusions are justified either way.
Pumpkin Person 
The obvious followup would be to get reaction time data for eskimos.
Figure Weights is a Piaget test where I scored 130 in 2016. I scored 130 on pumpkins puzzle test. And if my score was not invalidated I scored 130 on the picture arrangement test the second time I took it (95 the first time).
If it were not for the fact that I scored 75 on working memory and 75 on processing speed I think I would be 140 overall in Full Scale IQ.
If IQ were calculated by mental age: 1.3 x 8 = 10.4
or
12 / 1.3 = 9.2 was when I reached Piaget’s formal operations stage.
current age:
35 x 1.3 = 45 mental age
–
I know I am good at certain tasks that require high spatial g
I remember I once shared my high school a.i. paper with pumpkin. I do not know how to code but I once made a brain cell program in Java.
>It could just be that we can never understand the human brain since the brain itself is needed to understand it. – pumpkin person
I think pp that it is hard to get at this question if we do not understand what it means to be self-aware. Even if we had little information on the brain in the past we have known for decades that we model ourselves in self-reference loops. It is simple to know that the brain is 3D and that we can tell we know we exist thus we know that we know that we have a center that begins the process. I mean if Google is spending billions of dollars on a.i. supercomputer experiments then they know firsthand how the brain functions, even more than I do.
PP yea that sounds like a kind of neo-mysterian view of the mind. If I weren’t a dualist, I’d be a mysterian.
dualism has no account for how change happens. it has no account for feedback in the system. it was a simple philosophy before the proof of atoms existed and it assumed that surfaces create minds and not dynamic loops.
two surfaces exist a mental and a physical surface – when the mental surface separates from the physical surface we get the soul so to speak but that is what de carte meant: it is why animals have no soul in his view.
But as is known: change happens because of internal and external feedback and there is no mental surface that detaches from a physical surface.
“it was a simple philosophy before the proof of atoms existed and it assumed that surfaces create minds”
Source? How does the existence of atoms refute substance dualism?
“there is no mental surface that detaches from a physical surface.”
What does this mean? Mind is not identical to brain but brain is needed for mind. I don’t believe in disembodied minds. “Surface” implies a physical aspect and mind isn’t physical.
>mind isn’t physical.
physical and non-physical is a false dichotomy and physical is a useless term, it means nothing. might as well say pixie vs. non-pixie dust.
What’s the argument for that claim?
You cannot express in any terms what is physical rr, it is meaningless.
The material or tangible aspects of reality.
What’s the argument for this claim?
“physical and non-physical is a false dichotomy and physical is a useless term, it means nothing. might as well say pixie vs. non-pixie dust.”
>The material or tangible aspects of reality.
what is a “material”
what is a “tangible”
more meaningless “circular” terms.
What’s the argument that they’re “circular terms”?
You do not know what they are and cannot communicate what they are so it is meaningless.
What’s the argument that they’re circular?
they only define themselves and refer to nothing.
you can’t tell me what “physical” is.
Haha do you know what it means to “refer” to something? That is, do you know whag it means for a word to have a referent?
EXACTLY!
TALES OF THE CITY THE OG VERSION…
DECK CHAIRS ON THE TITANIC
…
RR STILL HAS YET TO GROK THE METAPHYSICS OF THE TITANIC (BECAUSE CLOSET HOMOSEXUL)…
SAD.
ONE THE GREATEST (BAD) MOVIES EVER!
I LOVE THIS MOVIE SO MUCH I CAN’T STAND IT!
^^^Best Anime(Cat) ever:
[AMV] Fairy Tail – Remember When
Visuospatial tilt?
Yes it’s quite possible the Piaget tests are just measuring spatial ability, but northeast Asians also have a spatial > verbal profile so that wouldn’t explain the similar scores between these two mongoloid groups if Jensen’s summary of the data is correct
?? Wow thats fucking terrible verbal reasoning. Maybe not verbal, just straight out logical reasoning.
YUGE cue to ‘tards…
THE “TALES OF” IS LIKE MAUAGHAM
IT’S WOMEN PORTRAYED AS GAY MEN.\
\
BUT YUGE HEADS UP FOR GIRLS…
THAT’S WHAT WE WISH YOU WERE!
LIKE…
A LOT….
THAT’S OUIR ULTIMATE FATNASY…/.
We need to more data on eskimos to say for sure. I have also heard eskimos have better memory than other races because of the storytelling culture/evolution.
Gould is a fraud and while most evolution of humans happened in the Ice Age its simply a scientific fact that it continued afterwards, in one particular case caused a very high IQ…
“Gould is a fraud”
You can’t explain why.
Because he lied.
Quote even ONE lie. Where a lie is “knowingly being deceptive”, not merely where one was just wrong and you think they lied.
Evolution for humans ended after 50000 years ago.
That’s not deception—his reasoning for the claim is above in those two quotes from Full House. Try again.
Evolution doesn’t end dumbass. Everyone knows that. Especially Gould. It was a baldface lie.
Actually once an organism becomes adapted to its environment, evolution does essentially end, only to start again in the very distant future:
https://biologydictionary.net/punctuated-equilibrium/
Good point PP. I agree with that. TP, do you not understand the entailment? I can explain it to you if you need me to.
Richard Klein is the only person I know of who applied Gould’s Punctuated Equilibrium to human evolution:
Each of the three or four punctuation events that we propose led up to the dawn of modern human culture occurred when human populations were small and geographically limited by modern standards. Each apparently occurred in Africa, and on present evidence, each appears to mark a coincidence of major biological and behavioral change. The first event occurred around 2.5 million years ago, when flaked stone tools made their initial appearance. These comprise the earliest enduring evidence for human culture, and their emergence probably coincided closely with the evolution of the first people whose brains were significantly larger than those of apes. The second event took place around 1.7 million years ago. The people this time were the first to possess fully human as opposed to ape-like body proportions, and they invented the more sophisticated stone artifacts that archeologists call hand axes. They may also have been the first to venture out of Africa. The third and most weakly documented event occurred around 600,000 years ago, and it involved a rapid spurt in brain size, together with significant changes in the quality of hand axes and other stone tools. The fourth and most recent event occurred about 50,000 years ago and it was arguably the most important of all, for it produced the fully modern ability to invent and manipulate culture. In its wake, humanity was transformed from a relatively rare and insignificant large mammal to something more like a geologic force.
False. Evolution literally continues every generation. People literally get taller, less disease prone, etc etc. Gould is talking about qualitative step changes. I’m talking about IQ levels going up point by point every generation.
“it’s remarkable how little the science has changed since 1981..”
This is a bad thing.
“which would mean the fully modern human mind pre-dated civilization.”
This is a wild claim and it doesn’t follow at all.
Re Gould: yea that tracks. Full House is an outstanding book.
But human cultural change is an entirely distinct process operating under radically different principals that do allow for the strong possibility of a driven trend for what we may legitamately call “progress” (at least in a technological sense, whether or not the changes ultimately do us any good in a practical or moral way). In this sense, I deeply regret that common usage refers to the history of our artifacts and social orginizations as “cultural evolution.” Using the same term—evolution—for both natural and cultural history obfuscates far more than it enlightens. Of course, some aspects of the two phenomena must be similar, for all processes of genealogicallt constrained historical change must share some features in common. But the differences far outweigh the similarities in this case. Unfortunately, when we speak of “cultural evolution,” we unwittingly imply that this process shares essential similarity with the phenomenon most widely described by the same name—natural, or Darwinian, change. The common designation of “evolution” then leads to one of the most frequent and portentious errors in our analysis of human life and history—the overly reductionist assumption that the Darwinian natural paradigm will fully encompass our social and technological history as well. I do wish that the term “cultural evolution” would drop from use. Why not speak of something more neutral and descriptive—“cultural change,” for example? (219-220)
“The most impressive contrast between natural evolution and cultural evolution lies embedded in the major fact of our history. We have no evidence that the modal form of human bodies or brains has changed at all in the past 100,000 years—a standard phenomenon of stasis for successful and widespread species, and not (as popularly misconceived) an odd exception to an expectation of continuous and progressive change. The Cro-Magnon people who painted the caves of the Lascaux and Altamira some fifteen thousand years ago are us—and one look at the incredible richness and beauty of this work convinces us, in the most immediate and visceral way, that Picasso held no edge in mental sophistication over these ancestors with identical brains. And yet, fifteen thousand years ago no human social grouping had produced anything that would conform with our standard definition of civilization. No society had yet invented agriculture; none had built permanent cities. Everything that we have accomplished in the unmeasurable geological moment of the last ten thousand years—from the origin of agriculture to the Sears building in Chicago, the entire panoply of human civilization for better or for worse—has been built upon the capacities of an unaltered brain. Clearly, cultural change can vastly outstrip the maximal rate of natural Darwinian evolution.” (Gould, 1996: 220)
“The Cro-Magnon people who painted the caves of the Lascaux and Altamira some fifteen thousand years ago are us—and one look at the incredible richness and beauty of this work convinces us, in the most immediate and visceral way, that Picasso held no edge in mental sophistication over these ancestors with identical brains.”
LOL. RR’s IQ is so fucking low he actually believes a caveman and Picasso had the exact same brain ahaha
Haha TP’s IQ is so low that he doesn’t understand the entailment.
RR simply does not get that the “dynamic growth” of the brain limits what a brain is capable of. He calls it ZPD but we all know it is the brain’s growth patterns as a dynamic system because I cannot hold 25 shapes in my head at the same time. RR believes I could hold 25 shapes in my head and compare them all at the same time if I was raised not raised improperly. But that is not how brains grow dynamically, they have limits.
How does that follow from Vygotsky’s ZPD? Brains aren’t what’s capable of anything—it’s the mind that is. Why do you keep returning to this “25 shapes” thing and repeating it as if it has any kind of bearing on Vygotsky’s argument or my definition of intelligence?
LOL RR doesn’t even know how to argue its that bad.
“Brains aren’t what’s capable of anything—it’s the mind that is”
Sometimes i still pay attention to our trroll just to come to same conclusion…. and stop to feed him.
Doesn’t know what a “mereological fallacy” is.
RR’s arguing technique is basically, and this is something very common with danes, ‘how do you get that conclusion from our assumptions?’. Maybe he rejects your assumptions you dumbass.
It’s just a misunderstanding of a concept.
Mind is magical.
Mind is immaterial.
Metaphysical…
>Why do you keep returning to this “25 shapes” thing
The whole point of pp’s article is about mental manipulation on Piaget tests. Saying the brain has no involvement is bullshit to the highest degree. Whereas (g) involvement in mental manipulations is critical to understanding brain growth processes.
A brain changes as it gets older but there is an innate process where the way it grows limits what it can mentally manipulate in the future.
RR >>> Doesn’t know what “cybernetics” is.
Ultimately RaceRealist has no understanding of how the brain is involved with intelligence. Any brain can be any kind of intelligence in his “mind”. That is why RaceRealist’s view on development is a fallacy, the brain changes to be intelligent and RR does not understand that change is different in different brains. RaceRealist does not believe that brain differences affect intelligence.
Iirc correctly, I think RR believes brain differences are necessary but not sufficient for explaining mind differences. It’s not possible to deny the brain plays a causal role in the mind, but because we know so little about both, people can still speculate that the mind also has a non-biological component: a soul. But like all religious beliefs, they inevitably become less tenable as science advances but RR just exploits the fact that brain science is in its infancy. I don’t bother arguing with him about this because it’s like arguing with a theist that there is no God. It’s a matter of faith, not science, since the science hasn’t progressed to metaphysical levels.
no pp, arguing with rr is not like arguing with a theist. arguing with rr is like arguing with a creationist. we have neuroscientific answers for how the brain does what it does just like we have fossil for evidence of evolution and the earth being 4 billion years old. what rr does is like the claim the bible tells us earth is 6 thousand years old because his religiosity is “apriori-ism”, “terminologies”, “arguments”, “anal-philosophies”, and most of all like pill said: muh “assumptions” and “fallacies”. – defend him like you defend creationists pp not theists. we have the brain right in front of us pp, it tells us with brain scans exactly what is happening with intelligence and that has nothing to do with consciousness or at least we can separate that question from objective fact that people can do more that other people. people can remember more, be more creative, see more, react faster and have greater manipulation of working memory. by defending rr you pp are denying objective facts of what happens in the brain. The only thing you need to do pp is just make the distinction between being theist (subjective faith believe) and being creationist (objective false belief) when it come to intelligence rr and the brain.
Jewsus, PeePee looks more and more stupid… and evil.
After her last freakshow, this piece of bullshit…
Even if neuroscience doesnt exist, really sane and smart people could, not just “speculate”, but also draw a reasonable line of thinking about all this “metaphysical” stuff as if always happened in the past.
The idea that onlyhuman socialmind is (objectively) metaphysical is pseudoscientifical and pseudophilosophical, only excepcionally dumb people like our trroll to believe.
Mind is just the expression of human nervous system in constant interaction with environment, and associated with other body systems, you know, PeePee, because the primacy of brain.
Santo, you’re not intelligent enough to understand what I’m saying. Consciousness is one of the great unexplained mysteries of neuroscience. For example we can make computers that can do complex math and complex language, but we can’t make a computer that is capable of feeling pleasure and plain, happiness and suffering.
Your self declared megalomania prevent you to understand and accept you are not that smart and this poor argument is a good demonstration of It.
Because consciousness is still not totally understood doesnt mean It is magical or metaphysical. This is an extraordinary claim which require extraordinary evidence exactly like claim the existence of God or eternal life.
But while there is no direct evidence of God existence or nonexistence, it’s way less difficult to know that (human) mind is not metaphysical just because it’s capable of high order or abstract thinking. Its intrinsic complexity can explain its magnificent capacity. Thinking is a chemical-physical event, not something which transcend (chemical-)physical world.
So Puppy finally endorses religion. Incredible. I never thought we would see the day Puppy abandoned atheism on this blog in public. Wow.
The pleasure/pain and feelings we get are parts of the brain dumbass. A computer will never be like a human but saying the mind exists outside of the brain as a ‘soul’….you and Mugabe should go to church together and pray to avoid eternal damnation. You fell for the most obvious cultist garbage.
I’m not endorsing religion; just saying some religious beliefs can’t be ruled out by science or logic. That’s why I’m agnostic, not an atheist and so are you.
The pleasure/pain and feelings we get are parts of the brain dumbass. A computer will never be like a human but saying the mind exists outside of the brain as a ‘soul’
If you don’t believe in a soul then why can’t a computer one day be like a person?
AK can you prove that “g” is a thing and not merely a latent hypothetical variable (which is what the main literature states)? That’s the thing, it has been falsified but you still push it as if it has any meaning.
PP is correct in his statements of my views on this issue. My belief is non-religious, and it’s not a matter of faith but of sound arguments against mind-brain identity and reduction. And yea like you said, it’s not possible to deny that the brain DOES play a role in this, but it’s not a sufficient role. The sufficient role is engrossment in reliable human cultural environments which set the stage for the rise of mind. Infants aren’t born intelligent, but they become intelligent as they interact with the world around them and with more knowledgeable others who help guide them in their development to become intelligent and how to handle society around them. This is why a socio-cultural view of the mind and development—I think—is so important to consider. I’m very confident that a socio-cultural and historical view of the mind and its development in humans in reliable cultural and linguistic environments is sufficient to explain the rise of the mind. But my belief is not a religious one.
Regarding your last comment PP, yea that tracks. And I argue that it’s not possible because computers are made of physical parts and what allows those things (mind, soul, consciousness) aren’t physical. I do think there could be a good argument that the soul exists in a non-religious context and I will try to develop that argument soon. Because I think it is clear and perfectly defensible that there is a non-physical—that is, immaterial—aspect to humans. And I do think that our free will is paramount in explaining that there is a nonphysical aspect of our constitution, as I argued in a recent article.
Santo,
“Mind is just the expression of human nervous system in constant interaction with environment, and associated with other body systems, you know, PeePee, because the primacy of brain.”
The nervous system is a necessary condition but not a sufficient one, since no nervous system means (human) life isn’t possible. The doesn’t have “primacy” and the interaction between the organism and the environment are paramount in explaining how mind arises. I’m currently thinking of how to integrate a kind of embodiment in my framework of DEC and CID along with a sociocultural view a la Vygotsky and Rogoff to tie everything together. But I don’t think your view is tenable.
“So Puppy finally endorses religion. Incredible. I never thought we would see the day Puppy abandoned atheism on this blog in public. Wow.
The pleasure/pain and feelings we get are parts of the brain dumbass. A computer will never be like a human but saying the mind exists outside of the brain as a ‘soul’….you and Mugabe should go to church together and pray to avoid eternal damnation. You fell for the most obvious cultist garbage.”
^^^ reading comprehension. Neither myself nor PP are theists. But I think mind is irreducible. Is pain merely the firing of C-fibers?
neither pp nor rr makes the distinction that what people can do is objective thus intelligence involves the brain.
“we have neuroscientific answers for how the brain does what it does just like we have fossil for evidence of evolution and the earth being 4 billion years old. what rr does is like the claim the bible tells us earth is 6 thousand years old because his religiosity is “apriori-ism”, “terminologies”, “arguments”, “anal-philosophies”, and most of all like pill said: muh “assumptions” and “fallacies””
Nice scientism. Neuroscience merely studies the physiology of the brain and it can’t study the mind.
“we have the brain right in front of us pp, it tells us with brain scans exactly what is happening with intelligence and that has nothing to do with consciousness or at least we can separate that question from objective fact that people can do more that other people. people can remember more, be more creative, see more, react faster and have greater manipulation of working memory. by defending rr you pp are denying objective facts of what happens in the brain.
It just shows correlates and that certain things happen in the brain during an action. It’s like you’re saying that Libet experiments show that our actions are preceded by brain events, and that’s laughably false. There are objective facts of brain (physical) events, but this fact doesn’t mean that it reduces to the subjective (the mind). You’re arguing the mind-brain identity is true, when it’s actually false.
“The only thing you need to do pp is just make the distinction between being theist (subjective faith believe) and being creationist (objective false belief) when it come to intelligence rr and the brain.”
I’m not a creationist. Can you explain to me what my argument is?
I will not read your garbage, trroll.
PP, A.I by now cant emulate humans in everything but it will. But emulate is not the same as becoming. It’s called ARTIFICIAL by some important reason…
Agnosticism is like a lazy and coward atheism. Actually, the most moderate is not being agnostic because agnosticism is based on a fallacy of false symmetry between religion and atheism, claiming that atheistic and religious arguments are equally reasonable.
PP declared herself as agnostic because HBD Chick did.
LOL! I didn’t even know HBD chick was agnostic.
“If you don’t believe in a soul then why can’t a computer one day be like a person?”
This level…
TP, what it’s like to feel pain explains why people avoid pain. See Morch’s “phenomenal knowledge why” argument.
AK, Here’s your argument.
What people can do is objective. If what people can do is objective, then intelligence involves the brain. Thus, intelligence involves the brain.
It’s logically valid, but it doesn’t align with Vygotsky’s perspective on the development of higher mental functions. Social interactions and cultural tools are the main driving forces behind cognitive development. So in my view and understanding and mounting of the argument, while the brain is necessary and thusly “involved”, it’s not the sole or even primary focus in the view. Intelligence also isn’t a product of the brain, but it’s co-constructed through social interactions, re his ZPD concept. Cultural tools like language and culturally-specific processes also mediate the relationship and mediate cognitive processes. So intelligence is shaped by cultural tools which then become individual psychological tools, so intelligence isn’t about the brain’s “capabilities.” Intelligence is developed and utilized in specific cultural contexts. You really need to drop this brain reductionism and metrology, it’s not a good look. Intelligence “involves the brain” merely as a necessary pre-condition, since no brain means no capacity to be intelligent.
“I will not read your garbage, trroll.”
Of course. Keep your mind closed.
PP is being perfectly reasonable with a perfectly valid explanation and is being attacked for it. Typical here in this comment section.
Are you fucking stupid the brain is the mind dumbass. All emotions, thoughts and will come from the brain. The fact that you believe in a soul is religion 101. What happens to the soul after you die is basically the number 1 thing religions pontificate about. Puppy is a moron. He doesn’t believe in the religion officially, he just believes unofficially in all the parts about metaphysics and morality. Great. A closet theist.
Are you fucking stupid the brain is the mind dumbass. All emotions, thoughts and will come from the brain.
So can we make a computer with the same emotions humans have?
The fact that you believe in a soul is religion 101.
I said we can’t rule it out. Would I bet on it? No
What happens to the soul after you die is basically the number 1 thing religions pontificate about. Puppy is a moron. He doesn’t believe in the religion officially, he just believes unofficially in all the parts about metaphysics and morality. Great. A closet theist.
LIES! I simply don’t think we know enough about physics to confidently reject the idea of a soul; that doesn’t mean I believe it. Even Richard Dawkins’s has no argument against it, even though he’s committed to materialism.
PP you basically articulated Gould’s non-overlapping magisteria argument, I think. Here it is. Mind telling me if that gels with your view?
All knowledge and questions can be categorized into two distinct domains: Science (empirical facts and the natural world) and Religion (moral and ethical values, meaning, and purpose). Science deals with empirical facts and the natural world. Religion deals with moral and ethical values, meaning, and purpose. There is no overlap between the domains of science and religion; they are non-overlapping. If there is no overlap between the two domains, then they are distinct and do not interfere with each other. Therefore, Science and Religion are distinct and do not interfere with each other.
>AK, Here’s your argument.
>What people can do is objective. If what people can do is objective, then intelligence involves the brain. Thus, intelligence involves the brain.
>It’s logically valid, but it doesn’t align with Vygotsky’s perspective on the development of higher mental functions.
rr higher mentl funtions are perfetlly aligned with how cybernetics works. simply in cybernetic terns abstractions form layers of more abstractions that create greater degrees of control. the brain has abstract layers inside it that allow us to understand/control the environment.
>You really need to drop this brain reductionism and metrology
you think cybernetics is reductionism fool.
you rr need to drop the bullshit that intelligence has no objectivity to it. again go learn what cybernetics is dumby. I just explained it to you clearly enough for your low level of intelligence to understand.
Soul is an exoteric term for the chemical energy produced internally by all living organisms during this absolutely constant interaction with environment. It also an aproximate synonymous for consciousness or “mind”, more related with religious context.
All the idea of metaphysics, eternal life and God require the belief on mind and on soul.
This oversimplifies the development of higher mental functions which aren’t determined by an individual’s internal cognitive processes. Again, the importance of social interaction and cultural tools is paramount in the construction of higher mental facilities. And it is reductionist because it attempts to explain complex cognitive processes through a simple analogy with control systems which overlooks the diversity of human cognition which is influenced by dynamic socio-cultural and historical factors.
If the cybernetic view assumes that understanding the internal components of cognition is sufficient for comprehending human cognition (reductionism), then it commits the mereological fallacy by neglecting the role of external factors. The cybernetic view assumes that understanding the internal components of cognition is sufficient for understanding human cognition. So the cybernetic view commits the mereological fallacy by neglecting the role of external factors and is reductionist.
It’s reductionist since it attempts to explain the human mind and cognition through a simplified cybernetic analogy, and this doesn’t capture how our minds develop and function. It commits the mereological fallacy because it assumes that understanding the internal components of cognition (“the layers of abstraction within the brain”) is enough to comprehend human cognition as a whole.
“I just explained it to you clearly enough for your low level of intelligence to understand.”
Cringe. Yea “low level of intelligence” when I can have multiple ongoing conversations about numerous things and not just “muh brain.” Makes sense bro.
>If the cybernetic view assumes that understanding the internal components of cognition is sufficient for comprehending human cognition (reductionism), then it commits the mereological fallacy by neglecting the role of external factors.
You again show you are a fool and don’t’ understand cybernetics. Cybernetics accounts for the internal and external view. Please stop with the cringe bullshit and study cybernetics dummy.
“dumby” – perfectly valid and sound argument. Sure thing bro. It doesn’t account for it like it does Vygotsky’s theory.
>It doesn’t account for it like it does Vygotsky’s theory.
you don’t understand cybernetic period.
You don’t understand Vygotsky. Period. My argument is sound. Period.
There is literally more evidence that the universe was created for a purpose by a ‘God’ than the existence of a soul. And its not just the soul you believe in. You basically think everything Oprah and Marianne Williamson say about ethics is brilliant even though they took most of it from religious texts. You are a closet theist. You just don’t believe some of the nuttier stuff about Joseph Smith bringing back gold tablets from the desert or the world being on the back of giant turtle.
Yes, some day they will invent a robot or computer capable of feeling ‘pain’ but it will be 300 years from now. As to other emotions like pride or loyalty or tribalism, tribalism in particular, I can’t say computer science will advance to that extent.
No I’m not a theist. For years I was a hardcore atheist but I started becoming agnostic after a high IQ internet friend from decades ago made two really powerful arguments against atheism. But I’m not a theist either and consider religious people generally stupid, especially fundamental ones like Mug of Pee who think Jesus came back from the dead.
As for the soul, I just find it strange that we can invent computers that can write software and do math problems and tell jokes but we can’t invent computers with even the most basic intention, feeling or purpose. No matter how complex and impressive their behavior, it’s always blind, automatic and mechanical. On the other hand computers can’t even drive cars yet so maybe I’m expecting too much. But it does make you wonder if there’s more to the universe than just the physical world, but it could just be that we can never understand the human brain since the brain itself is needed to understand it.
Human cognition—according to my DEC and CID—isn’t solely a product of abstract brain layers but emerges from a dynamic interplay between internal processes, lived experiences and cultural context. Abstractions gain meaning and efficacy though sensory perception, emotions and cultural influences which highlights the inseparable link between the internal and external dimensions of human cognition. So to understand higher mental functions we must adopt a holistic perspective that integrates the brain’s role as necessary with the broader cognitive system, which includes the body, senses, emotions, culture and the overall context.
Modern neuroscience is about 20 years old. Modern psychiatry about 80 years old. Its a very young field compared to chemistry or physics or others. We will eventually understand why people do things.
Evidence of free will is evidence of the brain. Case closed. You don’t need to pretend their is something else going on or ‘God’ is puppeteering us or whatever. RR wants to pretend the ‘mind’ is separate from the brain because he doesn’t want to admit biology/genes controls our behaviour and therefore, blacks are stupid.
In my opinion, the rubber really hits the road when we eventually encounter and research intelligent alien lifeforms and discover we may even be more limited and have less free will or less complex emotions or even completely lack certain functions of ‘the mind’ than other biological lifeforms. I think that is a lot more realistic than expecting us to invent a machine that isn’t a machine.
Philosophy of mind contributed to psychology since the father of psychology—William Wundt—was heavily inspired by philosophy of mind so we can say that philosophy of mind contributed to the emergence of psychology.
If I weren’t a dualist I would still reject genetic determinism. And that alien question is interesting. Off the top, I wouldn’t think it would refute substance dualism, since substance dualism could still apply to them. Or philosophers could think about alternative views while the substance dualist position for humans would still be in tact.
Interesting question from you, for once, that has me thinking. Maybe I’ll write something on it. Thanks for the prompt.
>If I weren’t a dualist I would still reject genetic determinism.
fucking retarded – always calls what he does not understand something bad.
genes are not passive – with no genes proteins would not exist – again rr has no idea what a feedback system is.
God damn it rr, actually study this before opening your ignorant mouth:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics
Haha sure thing bro. I was responding to TP, not you. Genes ARE passive, what’s the response to Noble’s argument? Prediction: You won’t give one. I don’t read Wikipedia my guy. My argument was sound.
your argument was flawed
genes are part of a feedback system
My argument is sound. Genes are necessary but not sufficient causes for traits. Development is irreducible to any one resource and the sufficient cause is the physiological system.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3262309/
what is a feedback system rr, you simply need to understand what that is before anything else.
Regarding Noble’s biological relativity argument, a feedback system is a regulatory mechanism where higher level biological functions and properties can influence lower level functions and properties and vice versa. This bidirectional feedback challenges the (your favorite word) reductionist paradigm where an organism’s characters are solely determined by its genome or it’s lower level processes. It emphasizes the dynamic interplay between different levels of biological organization, which highlights the importance of taking into consideration the higher and lower level influences which means we need to take a holistic view of biology.
What is Noble’s biological relativity argument? You simply need to understand what that is before anything else.
>What is Noble’s biological relativity argument?
good, you finally agree that feedback is not “reductionism” (your favorite word)
Haha Noble’s argument is effectively anti-reductionist, since it doesn’t give primacy to any of the developmental resources, and that means genes.
So what’s his argument?
bidirectional feedback on all levels.
which means that genes are proteins signal regulators at the most basic level.
was that so hard to understand?
or do you not understand cybernetics yet?
Bidirectional feedback—inherent in Noble’s biological relativity argument—refutes reductionism, “genes for” talk, and “genetics of general intelligence” talk. The point of the argument is that genes are necessary causes like all of the other resources but not sufficient. The sufficient cause of phenotypes is the irreducible interactions between them caused by the developmental (physiological) system.
What’s Noble’s relativity argument? Or do you not understand the argument from biological relativity yet? Or do you not understand the argument I gave you the other day yet?
>The sufficient cause of phenotypes is the irreducible interactions between them caused by the developmental (physiological) system.
cybernetics:
Self-regulation in cell biology is a dynamic process that allows living organisms to maintain internal stability while adjusting to changing external conditions. Self-regulation is important for cells because it ensures that:
A dividing cell’s DNA
is copied properly
Any errors in the DNA are repaired
Each daughter cell receives a full set of chromosomes
Self-regulation is explained by:
Homeostasis
, which is a dynamic process that can change internal conditions as required to survive external challenges
Regulatory mechanisms that shape the behavior of the system they regulate
Complicated networks of key-lock relationships
A distinctive molecular mechanism that employs small regions of genomic DNA called low-affinity transcription
factor binding sites
Examples of self-regulation in cell biology include:
Gene expression in living cells
Self-restrained genes that enable evolutionary novelty
The immune system, which controls the reaction of killer cells
Cell differentiation, which is regulated intrinsically through complex epigenetic
mechanisms
I don’t disagree with any of this. But you’re just equivocating. I know systems biology and it’s anti-reductionist. Talk all you want about “feedback loops” but is mere lip service if you talk about “genetic general intelligence.” “Gene for” talk is inherently reductionist.
Talking about “genetic general intelligence” is reductionist (nevermind the fact that “general intelligence” doesn’t exist).
I’ll rewrite my comment above here since it’s more apt here.
PP yea i remember you saying that years ago: “it could just be that we can never understand the human brain since the brain itself is needed to understand it.” and now that I’m much more well read on philosophy of mind, that’s a mysterian position. I’d be a mysterian if I weren’t a dualist.
I’d be interested in a well researched article from you on that matter if you had the time to do some serious reading and research into it.
In terms of scientific understanding and knowledge, RR is basically some guy who fell into a deep coma starting in about 1920 and woke up yesterday not knowing what genes are or any advances in psychiatry, psychology, neuroscience or even basic biology.
I find it highly ironic that rr would definitely get a higher score than me on an IQ test. You could not create as much BS as him without such a high score but that is the paradox: high IQ is not about being correct about reality.
If the mind is separate from the biology RR, why do the medications I think actually have any effect on my thoughts and behaviours?
“In terms of scientific understanding and knowledge, RR is basically some guy who fell into a deep coma starting in about 1920 and woke up yesterday not knowing what genes are or any advances in psychiatry, psychology, neuroscience or even basic biology.”
I guarantee that I’m the most well read person here.
By the way the relationship between the mental and the physical isn’t a scientific question.
There was an interesting study just published called the RADAR study by Joanna Moncrieff. The conclusion: “In people with recurrent psychosis or schizophrenia, we found no evidence to support our hypothesis that a gradual reduction of antipsychotic medication improved social functioning at 2-year follow-up.”
But there was another RCT 10 years ago in 2013 that found that people who were in the dose reduction (DR) arm had better outcomes than those who were in the maintenance (MT) arm.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23824214/
So while the result that Moncrieff found wasn’t what she wanted (it went against her stated hypothesis in the study, and she’s an anti-psychiatrist and very critical), she still published the study even though it went against her beliefs. But the other Wunderink study with the 7 year follow up found the DR arm had significantly better outcomes than the MT arm after follow up.
Here’s her writeup.
https://www.madinamerica.com/2023/09/what-the-radar-trial-tells-us-about-antipsychotic-reduction-and-discontinuation/
So you believe prescribing medications for mental illness is a waste of time?
Anime you are about 20-30 points smarter than RR. In terms of quantitative intelligence maybe even 50 points.
In terms of quant I barely remember 3 things at once.
But as for higher cognitive functioning (abstractions folded onto abstractions) that cannot be measured in quant terms, yes I might be higher in that regard, only it is a matter of focus, i studied a different set of reality than rr did, my metacognition has reflected on “intelligence” from age 12.
Do you accept the best longterm data we have on DR and outcomes after 7 years?
“Anime you are about 20-30 points smarter than RR. In terms of quantitative intelligence maybe even 50 points.”
Hahaha
EXACTLY!
if you take care of yourself and shit
you too can have a black baby.
SAD!
channel=TonyMendes
BLACK MEN AND WYMEN NEED TO BEAT DOWN THE GAY ALBANIANS LIKE RR!
^^^ straight clown.
Mugabe has been reading high IQ blogs and HBD forums for nearly 10 years and still persists with the idea that jewish success is based on culture. Wow. Idiot.
Partly it is as a culture co-evolution.
Here’s something I never got. Why dont Melo and RR go to a high IQ jewish blog and stroke the other wokies backs? THeres plenty of them. Iglesias. NYT. Daily Wire. Vox.
Have fun guys! Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out!
But one thing I agree with Gould on. Maybe the only thing. That evolution might not be ‘progressive’. Especially the way Puppy takes it to mean that chinese people are the most upgraded version possible of (a) a primate or (b) any organism on planet earth.
Im Irish and I love to fight!
I haven’t showered for a month and now all the dandruff on my head is starting to turn into a kind of paste. Interesting.
lmao
PP’s blog may have pound-for-pound the best comment section on the internet.
Comments like this are half the reason I bother to scroll below the end of the articles on this blog.
who was Pincher Martin? the great man whom i think mightve been Mug of Pee!
ive seen him on Greg Cochrans blog commenting quite often b4 i started trolling and made Cochran just practically leave his blog in shambles.
anyways im a good guy no need 2 worry.
Australian Aboriginals too, ALSO because they live in a desert of … sun, while Arctic Inuits lives in a desert of ice. Too extreme climate environments seems pressure for specialization.
It’s also may explain why they didnt have developed their linguistic ability at the same level to their visual abilit, because they are constantly needed to survive, not busy to use the correct pronouns or impress clever sillies with big useless words.
Interesting how visuo spatial abilities looks like an intuitive mathematics (or physics), because it’s mostly about dimensional comparisons and or/of estimated calculations.
Oh the Inuit “middle class skills” ….
Long live to Nanook!1
https://www.unz.com/isteve/marketing-major-postmodernism-marches-onward/
This is like crypto cohens fraud but on verby side.
Sam Bankman Fried? [redacted by pp, 2023-10-03]
we need 2 end these conversations between RR and Anime because it is affecting my personal life!
i can end it by saying im smarter than both and that i will always have more truth and wisdom than anyone who partakes in this stupid societal social experiment of reality!
i am the great! no one like me! not even PP!
Puppy evolved to have significant quant intelligence. Top 1% easy.
[redacted by pp, 2023-10-03]
Thanks
Will you stop doing this?
Will you stop showering me with compliments? It was nice at first but now it’s feeling stalkerish.
^^^Mental Illness
Puppy said racism makes blacks act violent. Puppy must think blacks actually watched 270 years a slave on repeat.
I never said that and don’t think that. You have a bad reading comprehension or bad memory or both.
I’ll make that claim, since it’s true and the predictions generated from the TAAO have empirical support. You’re just ignorant and won’t rationally accept a theory that makes successful novel predictions.
Well obviously youre fucking retarded if you think people think like that.
Obviously TP can’t address the successful novel predictions of the theory and can’t accept the theory since it conflicts with his worldview.
TBF it kind of still implies negative views of blacks, in that they are easily persuaded to do violence if they see something that they perceive as racist or portraying them as “criminals”. It is also a useless theory in the sense that even if it has predictive validity for African Americans specifically, it is ignoring certain underlying conditions that are unrelated to portrayals of racism, such as media that supports viewing “microaggressions” as a reason to be extremely upset or betraying a systemic bias, or the welfare state and Marxism creating an underlying atmosphere of self-victimization and recommending violent action/revolution to get back at Big Bad Whitey.
If you use self-reported cases of racism as your measure, and there are other underlying factors correlating with those self-reported cases (such as victimization culture), it only tells you so much about one should do to stop AA violence.
“It is also a useless theory in the sense that even if it has predictive validity for African Americans specifically, it is ignoring certain underlying conditions that are unrelated to portrayals of racism, such as media that supports viewing “microaggressions” as a reason to be extremely upset or betraying a systemic bias, or the welfare state and Marxism creating an underlying atmosphere of self-victimization and recommending violent action/revolution to get back at Big Bad Whitey.”
Well TAAO takes into account a myriad of factors like family socialization, substance abuse, educational attainment, economic conditions, community characteristics, peer influence, ethnic racial socialization, racial discrimination, stereotypes, and many more (but these are the main ones). TAAO operates in a broader framework of criminology, but mainly focuses on racial discrimination and stereotypes in explaining criminal behavior. You rightly point out that there are numerous other variables that play a role in influencing criminal behaviors, but TAAO doesn’t negate the consideration of these variables; it just highlights a specific aspect which has been empirically tested and found to be relevant in certain social contexts.
And the TAAO emphasizes the need for considering numerous contextual factors—including individual experiences and the historical treatment of blacks. The fact of the matter is, it has been empirically shown that blacks who have a stronger racial identity are more resilient in coping with racial discrimination and stereotypes. And the historical treatment of blacks provides essential context for understanding the theory’s main premise—that of the unique experiences, historical discrimination and contemporary racial dynamics faced by blacks which are fundamental in explaining the high rate of criminal offending within the population. The main premise has been empirically tested and proved, thus, there are actionable things we can do to mitigate crime in this population.
They has been epigenetically imprinted by trauma just like Tranns and Fatsy argued.
Well it has been argued that slavery left an epigenetic embodied effect on black women which explains low black birth weights and prematurity.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23390421_Low_Birth_Weight_of_Contemporary_African_Americans_An_Intergenerational_Effect_of_Slavery
Wowowowowowow
But IT started with te slavery Subsaharian “elites” practiced (still) against other African tribes??
What’s the argument against Jasienska’s theory Prediction: You dont have one, Santo Miles Cheong.
This shakedown of Trump financially by banning his business and fining him $250m. I mean what the fuck kind of legal system allows a person to just decide to investigate an individual with no cause? Theres no such thing as prosecutors or state attorneys in Ireland and UK. You actually have to break a law first before being investigated. This stuff basically means an outsider is not allowed run for public office or else the elites will sick a state attorney to rummage through your life and find something. Such a weird legal system.
This stuff basically means an outsider is not allowed run for public office or else the elites will sick a state attorney to rummage through your life and find something.
I don’t think they had to rummage very hard to find crimes that Trump did. He just got away with it for decades because he sucked up to the elites. Once he stopped sucking up and started openly challenging them, they stopped giving him a pass.
I want Biden to stay as president but even I think 91 indictments and 3 civil trials is a witchunt.
I thought the Russia spy investigation was outrageous deep state nonsense.
Why does TP, as a non-American, care about who the US president is?
Well the U.S. President affects everyone so I can kind of understand, but what pisses me off is when non-Canadians worry about Canadian politics.
The other day I overheard some guys in a bar bitching about Trudeau in some European accent. I walked over to them and said “why don’t you shut your fucking trap and not worry about it”
Yes american politics effects everyone. Also, its more interesting than european politics which isn’t as corrupt as US politics. We don’t have a deep state in Europe either.
Basically American politics is like watching pro-wrestling for adults.
Interesting discussion between Mearsheimer & Ficklestein
Finkelstein is an extremely honest scholar even though he gets some stuff wrong.
Finkelstein seems like hes lying constantly in this debate.
No, Finkletsein wouldn’t do that. Finkletstein is a huge critic of the Israel lobby and he HATES dishonesty. He famously called Alan Dershowitz a fraud and accused him of plagiarism during their debate, and Dershowitz went so ballistic he spent the rest of his life trying to destroy Finklestein, reducing him to earning only $15 K a year.
Dershowitz is proper Deep State. He was friends with Epstein and I know youll ban this, so redact it, but he [redacted by pp, 2023-10-05]
damn Mearsheimer is always so good
This man bun on RR….lol….in London the only people you see with that are tattoo artists and fast food workers.
Obviously the proof is in the pudding, the only thing RR could attract was a black woman.
RR’s lucky he doesn’t have a racist Italian father to answer to:
Haha at the plastic covering on the furniture. My grandmother had that on her couch and the couch looked pristine from when my mother was a kid to when we finally sold it 5 years ago.
Exactly my reaction if my daughter did that. I would go fucking apeshit.
Try taking a shower and washing your hair bro, get some anti-dandruff shampoo, keep up with your appearance and maybe you can attract a woman.
I think youre the person thats desperate buddy. A black? Is that to brag to the other wokies or something? What do your parents think?
Youre a fucking disgrace like the woman in the video.
Nice cope. I’ve been with many kinds of women in my life. Because I actually take care of myself, unlike you. And the sad part is that you willingly admit it here. lmao
So you avoided mentioning what your family thinks. But seeing as your so socially blinded, you probably think even their passive aggressive reactions to your baby and your gf are deep approval for your fetish.
“my fetish” hahaha god, you are such a clown. Go take a shower, take care of your appearance, wash your hair, eat well, go to the gym and maybe you’ll get a woman to look your way instead of spending your day in your parent’s basement constantly talking about American issues while not being American.
Still wont mention the shame of his parents.
Idiot, my parents aren’t “ashamed”—they love my baby. You wouldn’t know anything about that. Take a damn showed you dirty, disgusting idiot.
They are deeply ashamed they just won’t say it.
You’re such a clown. Not everyone is as racist as you are.
Not everyone is racist*
You’re such a sad little man. Get outside your house and experience the world, stop playing video games, take a fucking shower and talk to people. You have such a small, closed mind because of your biases. You probably just live in your parent’s basement with no social interaction. Sad. No girlfriend, no kids, just posts on PP’s blog all day. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad. But that’s just a consequence of your hateful life.
Everyone is racist like I am. They then have to be ‘educated’ to suppress it. But everyone starts out like me.
Post this one PP.
“Everyone doesn’t initially take showers. They then need to be “educated” to suppress it. But everyone starts out like me, and some stay like me because I’m disgusting.”
Its interesting RR. As a Berkeley acolyte how do you explain the existence of racism. People have racist instincts. So I guess Berkely people will say they were ‘taught’ that by their parents or something hahaha.
And who did the parent of the parents, and of the parents of the parent’s parents….basically you can’t explain where it originally came from without understanding that it is a biological mechanism and actually a very useful and pragmatic way of dealing with other humans despite what jewish morality says…
Oh I forgot to mention jews don’t actually practice anti-racism in Israel tee-hee. They are basically extreme racists there hahaha.
I guess their parents taught them to be racist!
I’ve already shown you that education mitigates racist attitudes. You had no response, of course.
So you wont admit racism is biological. Great,.
It’s a social construct. Race concepts differ around the world. I’ve given the argument here before.
WRONG. Racism exists everywhere around the world. Even blacks have racism. IDIOT.
Race exists everywhere around the world. Must not be a social construct. Idiot.
Phill,
“even Black have racism”
Correcting
They are, if not, more racist than other groups. The big difference is their chronic incompetence to create and sustain a large and complex social systems so they has been not capable to oppress other racial groups than their own neighbors of the same race, including non human animal species, in Subsaharian Africa.
Suburbian Woke zombies: Black people are experiencing racism and trauma. “We” need stop to opress them.
Blacks, disproportionately: [redacted by pp, 2023-10-03] each other, trashing the streets, lauguing loud, smilling a lot and feeling smart and good looking than most of other human beings…
Another one who doesn’t understand and accept the TAAO. Ian Miles Cheong junior.
I dont believe in absolute truth, bubbly.
Meta narratives is for reactionaries…
PP only finds losers and weirdos (not myself of course) 2 comment on his blog.
RR might be the only so called Italian in human history with no tribal instinct.
but arent you indian or something? im pretty sure ive seen a gravatar of your face on Aeolis blog back in 2016 that corroborates you being Malaysian or Singaporean because it was written under the name “the Philosopher” as well!
2 many pieces of evidence support the hypothesis youre an Asian male pretending 2 be Irish!
Ridiculous.
Mentall Illness^^^
wtf do you mean ive seen it you retarded asshole! plus youre more mentally ill than most homeless people i see on the street fucking moron!
I dont even know who aeoli is dumbass.
i find this very ironic because he was the first commenter on this post you idiot can you read!
this proves your awareness levels are super low!
Honestly I actually think Afro was more on the level than RR and Afro even denied slavery happened lol.
I wish Fit Finlay would come out of retirement and beat up RR.
Fit Finlay vs Loaded and RR in a handicap match in a cage, last man standing rules.
I would empty my bank account to watch that.
i could beat up Fit Finlay with ease. give him cardiac arrest and then take care of the rest!
Fit Finlay would batter you with a shillelagh.
intelligence the ability 2 not say or do gay things something that unfortunately blacks lack….
theres a Devil in Pills rear lol
ARTHUR RUSSELL = ALL MUSIC…
THAT’S IT!
THE GENIUS OF ALL GENIUSES!
this fool RR thinks he can break Animes worldview….only i can break Animes worldview and spirit fool!
i did a toll on the rest of yall already my truth is superb and bright! i am an ostentatious show of power and my truths and wisdoms will be everlasting while all of yours will fade!
God even fears me! because i am 2 powerful and great!
read it and weep!
We have open borders in Ireland but the majority of immigrants here are white from eastern europe and Brazil (for some reason brown and black brazilians never come here). Anyways there is a gigantic housing crisis here and the gay PM wants to bring in more. He passed a law legalising all illegals.
His party came third in the election and he can do all this crazy shit. But to be frank all political parties in Ireland are pro-open borders. We don’t have a nationalist right wing party. We have 2 corporate bot right wing parties that want open borders to lower wages plus a very left wing one.
I’m considering returning to Ireland some day and founding a nationalist party or to get involved and run for the Dail on closing the borders. I would win easily because all the other parties don’t want to be called ‘racist’ whereas I will copy Trump and be open about it and win 80% of the vote.
Sadly truly sane gay people are minority in the realm of rainbow. He may be “islcamophobic” too.
Puppy why do you go to bars so often…and you don’t even drink?
these “intellectuals” dont have time 2 talk about real things that would progress humanity 4ward only focusing on things that regress.
political bullshit is unnecessary! who cares about your political stances!
you guys are idiots!
So you wont admit Oprah and Williamson influenced your morality. Great. Nobody believes that.
What morality? LOL
Like all cultists you believe in universal love. All humans deserve unconditional love. You feel sorry for the minorities. You wanted reparations. You basically copied and pasted Marianne Williamson’s religious beliefs into your brain.
as long as you dont promote your gay and Mexican agendas round me i dont give a fuck what a nigga gotta say ya feel.
I agree. Real niggas know.
vs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmozQP3A8FA&ab_channel=ArthurRussell-Topic
ru8ssell > sup[er fr4eak
SADLY!
Mexican agendas?
sometimes this blog devolves in2 complete and hilarious absurdity that i find it actually kinda cute.
Can you we do a poll about banning RR?
There should be a poll about you taking a shower.
deflection of blame on either parts is morally incorrect!
listen if you want good advice on how 2 take hot showers and not be racist learn from a previous version of myself!
brilliant!
Its the official position of the US government that the Ukrainian border is more important than the American border lol. This is the weird shit that happens under danish rule.
RR calls me a racist as if I will back down and apologise or something LOL. Pavlov conditioning techiques don’t work on people with sky high verbal IQs and schiz tendencies dumbass.
https://www.thefp.com/p/two-murdersand-the-cost-of-luxury
The death of two progressive activists shocked the nation. And that says everything about crime and class in America.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/who-has-a-higher-homicide-rate-new-york-city-or-west-virginia/
Dont cry “progressivist” trroll
Funny how Failer—nor any other hereditarian—ever discusses the TAAO. Wonder why.
Another dumbest verby pseudo science??
Why you just stop to embarass yourself??
The (((TAAAAOOOOOOOOOO))) is .. OBJECTIVELY TRUE???
It’s the opposite of pseudoscience since it generates testable predictions which have been independently verified. That is, the theory generates hypotheses which generates successful novel predictions. You know that’s a hallmark of science, right?
“The (((TAAAAOOOOOOOOOO))) is .. OBJECTIVELY TRUE???”
Why fhe “((()))”? Is it rational to reject a theory that makes successful novel predictions?
His verbal IQ is so low he doesn’t understand how to argue a point with someone. His reasoning is ‘how did you get that answer from my model?’
I think he might be genuinely confused how we don’t get it. lol
What I’m confused about is why you don’t take showers and why you make empirical claims without data. Also confused about why people don’t accept theories that generate hypotheses and predictions which were novel and successful.
Name 3 predictions of the theory.
For all people here the most mentally ill is this negrophile.
Racial differences in behavior and cognitive performance are not testable hypothesis. They are observed facts. The fact Black disproportional violence rate mostly against other Blacks and also in majority Black countries are evidence that this behavioral tendency is not caused by supposed white structural racism.
“Name 3 predictions from the theory”
Sure. Here’s how they follow from the theory and the references that verified it.
(Prediction 1) 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. (Burt, Simons, as Gibbons, 2013; Burt, Lei, and Simons, 2017; Gaston and Doherty, 2018; Scott and Seal, 2019)
(Prediction 2) Experiencing racial discrimination increases the likelihood of black Americans engaging in criminal actions. How does this follow from the theory? TAAO posits that racial discrimination can lead to feelings of frustration and marginalization, and to cope with these stressors, some individuals may resort to commuting criminal acts as a way to exert power or control in response to their experiences of racial discrimination. (Unnever, 2014; Unnever, Cullen, and Barnes, 2016; Herda, 2016, 2018; Scott and Seal, 2019)
(Prediction 3) Black Americans who feel socially marginalized and disadvantaged are more prone to committing crime as a coping mechanism and have weakened school bonds. How does this follow from the theory? TAAO suggests that those who experience social exclusion and disadvantage may turn to crime as a way to address their negative life circumstances. and feelings of agency. (Unnever, 2014; Unnever, Cullen, and Barnes, 2016)
“The fact Black disproportional violence rate mostly against other Blacks and also in majority Black countries are evidence that this behavioral tendency is not caused by supposed white structural racism.”
That doesn’t follow at all Santo Miles Cheong. The TAAO is true, and you have no response to it. Call me a “negrophile” because I provide evidence for my empirical claims and argue them? You’re a “wanna-be Europ-phile”, always talking about “us” when it comes to whites but you wouldn’t be seen as white in America, only in Brazil. Sad life you live.
By the way, Cernovsky and Littman 2019 showed Rushton cherry picked his crime data and a lot of his claims didn’t hold upon reanalysis. You’re just going to say “(((Cernovsky and Littman)))” because you’re an idiot who doesn’t accept data.
By the way, Cernovsky and Littman 2019 showed Rushton cherry picked his crime data
And you don’t cherry pick? Every single paper you cite is anti-HBD. How is that not cherry picking?
“And you don’t cherry pick?”
There is a reason why I said what I said—Rushton was inherently dishonest in “finding proof” for his theory. Those two authors showed he cherry picked and that’s a fact.
“Every single paper you cite is anti-HBD.”
What do you mean by “anti-HBD” here? Do you mean “anti all race differences”?
I’m not the one making a grand (falsified) theory of race with numerous different variables that amounts to “blacks bad traits. Asians good traits. Whites in middle traits.” I give sound arguments for my claims.
https://www.unz.com/jtaylor/the-ridiculous-idea-that-race-isnt-real/
Boo
PP post this one.
To be a good American, you are supposed to believe outlandish things about race. You’re supposed to believe it doesn’t exist.”
This is idiotic. Social constructivists about race aren’t anti-realists about race—they’re anti-realists about BIOLOGICAL race.
“That it’s immoral to think it has anything to do with biology.”
This doesn’t follow at all. There are biological race differences, but not what the hereditarian needs.
“The American Psychological Association has a glossy brochure, written by six PhDs, who explain that “race is a social construction rather than a biological reality.””
Nice contradiction: “You’re supposed to believe it doesn’t exist.”
““Only in the past few centuries, owing largely to European imperialism, have the world’s people been classified along racial lines.””
Ignorant of hisorey and the RACE concept, shocking.
“So, anyone who tells you Europeans invented the idea of race just a few centuries ago and that it’s only a social construct is either stupid or thinks you are stupid. How can we tell a European from a Pygmy – at a glance – if there aren’t biological differences?”
Wow he doesn’t understand the implication of the claim above—what else is new?
“There are still a few brave – and often lonely – scholars who fight the madness. This 2020 article about the reality of race and what that means is about the best you will find.”
Haha that paper is trash.
“Dog breeds are nothing more than extreme versions of human races.”
This is false.
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-019-0109-y
“Another cuckoo argument is to say that there can’t be races because “racists” disagree on how many there are.”
Racial pluralism is true, so it depends on the social context in which the claim is made. In American racetalk, there are 5 races based on the OMB and K=5.
“The race deniers are straining, struggling, torturing themselves to deny something that’s obvious.”
“Race deniers”, but they’re social constructivists, which means they’re realists about race? This is why it’s pertinent to distinguish between anti-realism about BIOLOGICAL race. And the claim that BIOLOGICAL RACE isn’t real doesn’t entail that there aren’t PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES between groups.
“That means when black and brown people do badly, they can blame us.”
He’s had 12 years to say something on the TAAO, but hasn’t. Curious.
“Second, they want you to believe it doesn’t matter if non-whites pile into white countries and we disappear”
Have more babies? What’s the argument that people shouldn’t be able to emigrate?
Wow, the same article he’s been writing for 30 years. Such new ground.
Retard and his criminal pseudo collaborators really dont understand the basics of Science, they only are in the place of Power and Influence now because psychopathic jews taken the Western World to use them as an useful idiots. They are horses in the top of building.
This stupid hypothesis is stablishing a causation between racial identity (whatever It is) with criminal proneness already based on a wrong assumption that Blacks are marginalized and discriminated only because the color of their skin. Layers of a “secular” religion crap passing as intelligence.
What is happen is that Blacks who are more prone to vocalize “racial” identity are more likely to be well adapted or adjusted to Black social hierarchy while less adapted Blacks, disproportionately more prone to do poorly on school and lack self control, are less likely to signalize “racial” identity because they feels not belonging to Black society, but it doesnt mean they are less ETHNOCENTRIC.
Specially in the USA, Blacks has been incentivize to cultivate a strong racial identity (as if they needed…) while Whites has been desincentivize. Well adapted Blacks tend to do better in School (high IQ) and have more self control.
Supposed correlation because Blacks tend to be more ethnocentric regardless their social context and intrinsic traits.
“really dont understand the basics of Science”
The “basics of Science” is to generate novel, successful predictions based on theories and hypotheses. And the TAAO has done so.
“This stupid hypothesis is stablishing a causation between racial identity (whatever It is) with criminal proneness already based on a wrong assumption that Blacks are marginalized and discriminated only because the color of their skin.”
Do any of the three predictions NOT follow from the theory? It’s a yes or no question. If yes, explain why.
“Specially in the USA, Blacks has been incentivize to cultivate a strong racial identity”
Do you think this refutes prediction 1? Again, of course there is no response to the NOVELNESS of the predictions.
The wannabe-white, racist Brazilian can’t accept a theory that makes novel predictions, very telling.
Zombie rats like you must have the same destiny as those mentally ill “activists” who were murdered by people they defended.
The first “comment” is pure juice of retardness peepee tolerate here only in order to increase her audience.
It’s not a theory: a well stablished hypothesis which reflects a given reality. It’s a very poorly based hypothesis which mimic real Science and is only accepted in academia by political reasons. I already explained but your schizo/fragmented thinking is based on cherry picking everything.
In a real Scientifical Approach this hypothesis is easily classified as a set of extraordinary claims without equally extraordinary evidences because its poor foundation with reality, it’s a made up correlation supported only by semantic game not by real reflection with facts and treated as a causation in which incentivizing ethnocentrism on Blacks universally and effectly make all them less likely to commit crimes. Firstly It treat Blacks as a monolythical group blankslately influenced by circumstances. Second, it’s very unlikely that the “measurement” level among Blacks was correctly done.
How the belief on mind as a very powerful property at the point to believe It is beyond chemical-physical world and the supposed absolute influence of environment on human behavior can hold together is only possible to an insufferable dumb like your type. And i’m not truly responding you but commenting for other people who will really read my comments in order to understand them.
The same guy who say race doesnt exist believe can classify my racial profile OBJECTIVELY.
Only Peepee sociopathy to keep you here. You are totally pathetic and again only tolerated by PeePee because she is using your mental illness to increase the views of her blog. She is the kind of people who can do anything for money or popularity.
If I did anything for money and popularity, I wouldn’t have an HBD blog in the first place.
“Second, it’s very unlikely that the “measurement” level among Blacks was correctly done”
Ethnocentrism “measurement”.
“(((All))) Blacks are marginalized and discriminated”
Reality: specially those Blacks who lacks intelligence and/OR self control (character) who are more in the risk of SELF marginalization and this group is disproportional among Black “communities’.
Negative discrimination specially today is a logical reaction to disproportion of individual Blacks who are involved in very bad behaviors. That’s why people discriminate way less East Asians, even less than poor or working class Whites. But even in the past 70, 80 years ago, when structural racism was still a thing, there was a very good reason to treat Blacks based on the way they tend to behave. The big difference between old structural racism and today is that in the past even good behaved Blacks ended up being negatively discriminated. Today, there is this effort to always make the distinction between sociopathic Blacks and the normal ones, effort at the risk specially because retarded as you. I never would like to have as lawyer due to your deficient judgment skills
If i was PeePee i would ban you forever from this blog not just because you are very dumb but also a fucking troll.
Don’t worry Santo, RR and his other good “White” friends have it all figured out. They understand exactly why Black males are more likely to murder. Even though plenty of other people like them have also known the truth about what causes racial differences for decades, and even though we’ve had civil rights revolution after revolution… THIS time the races are definitely going to be equal!
All it will take is more of your money, your property, for you to step down from any “unearned” position of privilege, and to bow down to diversity for the rest of your life. It will work really well, just like communism always worked really well.
““Race deniers”, but they’re social constructivists, which means they’re realists about race? This is why it’s pertinent to distinguish between anti-realism about BIOLOGICAL race. And the claim that BIOLOGICAL RACE isn’t real doesn’t entail that there aren’t PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES between groups.”
Wow, so biological differences are real and it’s also true that there is some arbitrariness in our definitions of race. And dog breeds are not exactly like human races. I’ll tell my bone marrow this important information.
…
I believe that positive racial identity might help, at least temporarily and in certain contexts, decrease violent or other criminal behavior (in everyone, not simply blacks). It is probably tautological, effecting anyone with a generally positive self-identity. But it’s an almost religious hypothesis, like a placebo effect, and extremely general. It corresponds with every other time we’ve been told the racial divide will be bridged, which never happens, and money, time, and human life is lost.
While Western society is individualistic and everyone has the right to be considered on their own merits, and having a maximally positive self-image is probably for the best, we also believe in free will and freedom of speech. If someone can’t control themselves because of the what they saw on TV or remember hearing someone say, that effected them and made their self-image more negative, it is not up to others to try to re-inforce their self-image so that they don’t become a criminal.
That is what communities should do, and preferably that is what the family and father especially should do. But it’s not really enforceable by law. And I don’t see any one volunteering to help struggling White people as they lose their countries and populations to multiculturalism and/or globohomo (except other Whites themselves, who often would prefer to help other races due to lots of propaganda.)
Santo Miles Cheong,
“Zombie rats like you must have the same destiny as those mentally ill “activists” who were murdered by people they defended.”
Except I know how to fight and I’m not a pussy.
“It’s not a theory: a well stablished hypothesis which reflects a given reality. It’s a very poorly based hypothesis which mimic real Science and is only accepted in academia by political reasons. I already explained but your schizo/fragmented thinking is based on cherry picking everything.
In a real Scientifical Approach this hypothesis is easily classified as a set of extraordinary claims without equally extraordinary evidences because its poor foundation with reality, it’s a made up correlation supported only by semantic game not by real reflection with facts and treated as a causation in which incentivizing ethnocentrism on Blacks universally and effectly make all them less likely to commit crimes. Firstly It treat Blacks as a monolythical group blankslately influenced by circumstances.”
Word salad. You don’t understand the theory and how the predictions follow from it. I laid it out for you. A hallmark of science is a theory that makes testable, successful novel predictions and this theory has done just that.
“Second, it’s very unlikely that the “measurement” level among Blacks was correctly done.”
Prove it.
“The same guy who say race doesnt exist believe can classify my racial profile OBJECTIVELY.”
I have years of blog articles and years of comments on PP’s blog—go ahead and quote me EVER making this claim. You don’t know what social constructivists about race believe.
“Only Peepee sociopathy to keep you here. You are totally pathetic and again only tolerated by PeePee because she is using your mental illness to increase the views of her blog. She is the kind of people who can do anything for money or popularity.”
Translation: I want an echo chamber on PP’s blog. You don’t have to read nor respond to my comments, you know.
““(((All))) Blacks are marginalized and discriminated””
That’s not an entailment of the theory.
“Reality: specially those Blacks who lacks intelligence and/OR self control (character) who are more in the risk of SELF marginalization and this group is disproportional among Black “communities’.”
This doesn’t address ANY prediction, but that’s to be expected. It’s been shown that strengthened school bonds and ethnic racial socialization can decrease offending in this group.
“Negative discrimination specially today is a logical reaction to disproportion of individual Blacks who are involved in very bad behaviors. That’s why people discriminate way less East Asians, even less than poor or working class Whites. But even in the past 70, 80 years ago, when structural racism was still a thing, there was a very good reason to treat Blacks based on the way they tend to behave. The big difference between old structural racism and today is that in the past even good behaved Blacks ended up being negatively discriminated. Today, there is this effort to always make the distinction between sociopathic Blacks and the normal ones, effort at the risk specially because retarded as you. I never would like to have as lawyer due to your deficient judgment skills”
Again, it’s been empirically shown that this increased black crime rates. And I know more than basic logical skills, something you quote obviously lack.
“If i was PeePee i would ban you forever from this blog not just because you are very dumb but also a fucking troll.”
Just don’t read my comments, wanna-be.
“Wow, so biological differences are real and it’s also true that there is some arbitrariness in our definitions of race. And dog breeds are not exactly like human races. I’ll tell my bone marrow this important information.”
This doesn’t follow at all.
“extremely general”
No, it’s the opposite of general. Because it’s very specific as some of the causes of AA offending.
“While Western society is individualistic and everyone has the right to be considered on their own merits, and having a maximally positive self-image is probably for the best, we also believe in free will and freedom of speech. If someone can’t control themselves because of the what they saw on TV or remember hearing someone say, that effected them and made their self-image more negative, it is not up to others to try to re-inforce their self-image so that they don’t become a criminal.”
TAAO doesn’t suggest that society should merely reinforce self-image, rather it underscores the importance of assessing systemic issues, like racism, that contribute to negative self-image, and in turn criminal behavior. It acknowledges that improving outcomes requires comprehensive strategies that go beyond mere individual self-perception, although again the predictions and studies which show the predictions hold show that this is an important—but not the only—factor.
The predictions and how they follow aren’t to be taken in isolation—they all build off of each other. So the approach aligns with the empirical evidence and the theory’s predictions which emphasize the importance of considering various interconnected factors when addressing racial disparities in criminal offending, which the TAAO has successfully done.
Lurker, i know lots of these mentally defficient people to know many them are true believers, just like God-believers. They really tamed themselves on all of this bullshit but also expecting to take personal advantages within this anti white/”anti racism” system. Today, Woke is one of the Power’$ branch.
“The theory argues that positive ethnic-racial socialization inhibits African American offending by attenuating the criminogenic effect of weak social bonds. Using data from a prospective, longitudinal cohort of African Americans from the Woodlawn Project, we test whether these postulations hold for adolescent delinquency and adult offending and find general support: Positive ethnic-racial socialization buffers the effect of weak school bonds on adolescent substance use and adult offending for males, but not females, across most crime types. Advancing criminological discourse on race, offending, and resilience, this study has implications for broader criminological theorizing and crime-reduction efforts.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9473348/
See, when I make empirical claims I can back them. Obviously PP’s commentariat cannot do that. Wonder why.
Gigantic piece of shit of someone who has a mind without having a brain. Keep making this freakshow, writes a lot, stuff your deffective neurons…
My time to give the attention you dont deserve is finished, homeopathic charlatan.
But you never made an empirical claim. I’ve been here 7 years and you have never once posted a statistic. If you want to say prove that racism causes crime you have to prove increased crime results from increased racism.
I want to see statistics.
All you post is theory.
I call you a racist… Because you are a racist. I don’t expect you to “back down” or “apologize.” I’m just calling an apple an apple. You constantly make empirical claims yet never provide sources, which speaks to your ignorance.
Morality is relative, deer.
Racist attitudes have deleterious effects, “deer.”
RR hates when people portray blacks as violent and criminals when it simply reflects the stats, because it understandably gets some BIPOC people upset, (and of course slavery/Jim Crow)…
but when the ADL literally MAKES UP white crime statistics and mainstream media spreads hatred against “Whiteness” in general, that could easily be associated with the massive increases in depression, anxiety, suicide, amongst Whites using the same tenuous connections between black crime rates and telling the truth about it, you’ll just hear crickets from people like RR as he snores “honkshoo honkshoo… mimimimimi” while hugging his pharmaceutically approved pillow, finally just happy to let his hair hang loose after a long day of straining his scalp for the sake of brah maxxing his aesthetics and arguing with racists online.
RR’s self-preservation instincts have been relegated to one-rep maxes and looking good to academics who are only looking for grants.
What white crime stats did the ADL make up?
“could easily be associated with the massive increases in. depression, anxiety, suicide amongst whites”
Plausible. Is there data for what you’re saying? Pretty sure it’s older white men who have higher rates of suicide as well.
One-rep maxes are where it’s at.
So you think the ADL and SPLC doesn’t exaggerate or make up “right-wing extremism” statistics and “White Supremacy symbols”, and “anti-semitism” (all of which always mainly are related back to White people)? While at the same time, mainstream media actually works to limit the identification of murderers as black or other brown in news reporting? Are there any mainstream counterparts to people like Ibram Kendi, that one lady, or Tim Wise, who criticize “Blackness” or “Browness” like they do to Whiteness?
“Plausible. Is there data for what you’re saying? Pretty sure it’s older white men who have higher rates of suicide as well.”
I don’t know if there would be data on that because the people who make all these social science studies don’t really care about White people. It doesn’t make them look good or feel fuzzy and warm inside.
I mean, you made the claim so you have to provide evidence. I do think there is exaggerating from the ADL on that, but wkth the “right-wing extremism”, this is pretty specific and should be easy enough to prove.
Re “anti-semitism”, in NYC 33 percent arrested for that in 2019 were black while 60 percent were white. Both are over-represented compared to the share of the population.
“limit the identification of murderers” I don’t think is relevant since the truth always comes out about the identity of the killer. Like with the one black lie that stabbed the guy last week, CBS blocked his face out but eventually his face was shown.
“That one lady” meaning Diangelo? Kendi and Diangelo are charlatans, Kendi actually got outted a few weeks ago for wasting millions with his anti-racism fund. I don’t think there are people like them who criticize “Blackness” or “Browness” like they do to Whiteness.
While what you’re saying is plausible, you need data since that’s an empirical claim. Are older white men watching the news, seeing negative things about whites and offing themselves because of it?
ADL is basically a danish supremacist organisation. I mean, they are pretty open about being a representative of the Israeli government even.
Why bother calling me a racist at all? Its obvious to everyone here what my views are. I’ve been saying the exact same thing for 7 years. Its totally redundant to say that term to me. Its like accusing Puppy of being a HBD believer, after 10 years reading the blog.
Obviously you said that term because you think it has some sort of magical power over me or to somehow make me feel shame or something.
In these circles, most people here would agree that you being a denier of science and not believing evolution makes you a troll. Nobody wants to read your opinions. We would all be on your blog if that was the case. Your opinions are literally a copy and paste from the ADL website. People don’t come to a blog about IQ differences in races to read a comment from a rival blogger who doesn’t even think IQ or even the brain exists.
You say “denier of science” and “not believing evolution” when you can’t ever quote me. Because you’re a clown. “doesn’t think…the brain exists” haha you’re so dense. Find ONE of my opinions that’s “copy and pasted from the ADL website.” Spoilers – you won’t. Because you’re a clown.
Morality is relative thus racism is relative. Racism can be anything, from the study of race to a objective atitude or truth, but you know objectivity is not possible.
Deleterious?? What is It??
How is has been defined???
“from the study of race” – nope.
“Deleterious” meaning “causing harm or damage.” Geronimus et al found that experiencing higher rates or stressors for black women experienced more allostatic load, and this wasn’t due to poverty since even well-off blacks had this.
“Experiencing racism (environmental stimuli) is associated with increased blood pressure (HTN). So if one experiences racism they will them experience an increase in blood pressure, as BP is a physiological variable (Armstead et al, 1987; McNeilly et al, 1995; see Doleszar et al, 2018 for a review). The concept of weathering, then, shows that racial health disparities are, in fact, racist health disparities (Sullivan, 2015: 106). Racism, then, contributes to higher levels of allostasis and, along with it, higher levels of certain hormones associated with higher allostasis.
One way to measure biological age is by measuring the length of telomeres. Telomeres are found at the ends of chromosomes. Since telomere lengths shorten with age (Shammas, 2012), those with shorter telomeres are ‘biologically older’ than those of the same age with longer telomeres. Geronimus et al (2011) showed that black women had shorter telomeres than white women, which was due to subjective and objective stressors (i.e., racism). Black women in the age group 49-55 were 7.5 years ‘older’ than white women. Thus, they had an older physiological age compared to their chronological age. It is known that direct contact with discriminatory events is associated with poor health outcomes. Harrell, Hall, and Taliaferro (2003) note that:
“…physiological set points and the mechanisms governing them are not fixed. External stressors can permanently alter physiological functioning. Racism increases the volume of stress one experiences and may contribute directly to the physiological arousal that is a marker of stress-related diseases.””
This also then increase BP which then leads to lowered brain volume.
Don’t know why I’m citing studies for my empirical claims to you, since you never cite any for your empirical claims and you seem to be allergic to citing studies. Because you’re ignorant. Because you don’t read.
Never will waste my time with your garbage, zombie.
Bad science today is fashionable.
Of course—nothing to say. Because you’re ignorant. Because you don’t read.
Your trash, of course, never ever waste my time reading it. I prefer to hear myself defecating than reading your written mental illness. I dont think mental illness is funny… would be cruel. You are here as a devoted missionary of your idiotic crimethought quixotean group trying to recruit as much as possible using us as a mean to an end, posting your pseudo garbage links to attract other retards to your web, training them to walk in Black majority areas at the night to “prove” they are not “racists”, also to take a Black partner to “prove” race is just a social construct and believing ordinary Whites, including the poorest among them, are absolutely privileged/ directly responsible for all Black and other non white delinquencies demanding “corrections”/ punishment.
“mental illness” – “Anyone who disagrees with me and actually uses argument and data is mentally ill”, sure bro.
“devoted missionary” haha
“garbage links” – I provide data for my claims, you don’t. That’s the difference between you and I.
“training them to walk in Black majority areas to “prove” they are not “racists”” – haha what are you talking about?
“take a Black partner to “prove” race is just a social construct” – what are you talking about? Are you a mind reader? You’re absolutely delusional. I’m with my lady because I love her.
“believing ordinary Whites, including the poorest among them” – I don’t believe that. Why do you make these claims about my beliefs when you KNOW you can’t back them?
That has no bearing on the TAAO, which is true.
Go ahead and explain to me what my belief on the RACE concept is.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/
Bidens approval rating is worse than Trumps -17 vs -14.
Anyways, I’d be surprised if Oprah actually believes in Williamson’s moral views. We know Oprah worships Harvey Weinstein who is basically something you would call a satanist and is a clinical psychopath.
PRINT THIS
Yawn. Everyone sucked up to Weinstein, even the Obamas. He was the most powerful man in Hollywood and a major contributor to the Democratic party.
“To be a good American, you are supposed to believe outlandish things about race. You’re supposed to believe it doesn’t exist.”
This is idiotic. Social constructivists about race aren’t anti-realists about race—they’re anti-realists about BIOLOGICAL race.
“That it’s immoral to think it has anything to do with biology.”
This doesn’t follow at all. There are biological race differences, but not what the hereditarian needs.
“The American Psychological Association has a glossy brochure, written by six PhDs, who explain that “race is a social construction rather than a biological reality.””
Nice contradiction: “You’re supposed to believe it doesn’t exist.”
““Only in the past few centuries, owing largely to European imperialism, have the world’s people been classified along racial lines.””
Ignorant of hisorey and the RACE concept, shocking.
“So, anyone who tells you Europeans invented the idea of race just a few centuries ago and that it’s only a social construct is either stupid or thinks you are stupid. How can we tell a European from a Pygmy – at a glance – if there aren’t biological differences?”
Wow he doesn’t understand the implication of the claim above—what else is new?
“There are still a few brave – and often lonely – scholars who fight the madness. This 2020 article about the reality of race and what that means is about the best you will find.”
Haha that paper is trash.
“Dog breeds are nothing more than extreme versions of human races.”
This is false.
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-019-0109-y
“Another cuckoo argument is to say that there can’t be races because “racists” disagree on how many there are.”
Racial pluralism is true, so it depends on the social context in which the claim is made. In American racetalk, there are 5 races based on the OMB and K=5.
“The race deniers are straining, struggling, torturing themselves to deny something that’s obvious.”
“Race deniers”, but they’re social constructivists, which means they’re realists about race? This is why it’s pertinent to distinguish between anti-realism about BIOLOGICAL race. And the claim that BIOLOGICAL RACE isn’t real doesn’t entail that there aren’t PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES between groups.
“That means when black and brown people do badly, they can blame us.”
He’s had 12 years to say something on the TAAO, but hasn’t. Curious.
“Second, they want you to believe it doesn’t matter if non-whites pile into white countries and we disappear”
Have more babies? What’s the argument that people shouldn’t be able to emigrate?
Wow, the same article he’s been writing for 30 years. Such new ground.
im just surprised i havent made a boatload of money yet and lived up 2 my handle/username!
i am a great salesperson irl but need sum dedication 2 my crafts 2 make as much money as PP has implied or at least as much as other users maybe.
who knows. poverty is devastating though even if you live in a 6 bedroom house and have every necessity met!
rich kids can relate!
The positive racial identitarianism primarily among US blacks is part of their own civil culture since the civil rights revolution, then, well socially adjusted Blacks, generally possessing advantageous intrinsic traits reinforced by good environments their parents created, tend to be more integrated in their ethnocentric-overincentivized communities and not the illiterate, magical thinking “Science”: “just indoctrinating any Black individual to feel proud about his race automatically will make him less criminal-prone”.
There’s a testable explanation on why more blacks don’t criminally offend—and what do ya know, positive ethnic racial socialization (ERS) is why (as in that reference I cited above). But you don’t care about empirical evidence for empirical claims.
You dont know what you are talking about, brainless.
A mere correlation, but treated as an universal causal mechanism.
“Just indoctrinate criminal blacks to feel racially proud and they will stop to behave badly”
So illiterate…
“You don’t know what you are talking about”
My ability to have multiple ongoing conversations about multiple different things proved otherwise.
“A mere correlation” – what don’t you understand about TESTABLE NOVEL PREDICTIONS?
I’M illiterate? I read every day, you clearly don’t. The theory is true and makes novel predictions, which the hereditarian hypothesis doesn’t. So illiterate…
It’s not “A mere correlation”, the hypotheses suggest that certain factors like racial discrimination, racial identity and positive ethnic racial socialization have a causal influence in criminal behavior in AAs. And the FACT that the predictions were tested and found to hold means… What, Santo? I’m only asking you to draw the right inference, not to believe it’s true (which you should).
So what’s the right inference to the question?
Since the civil rights era, the black family has totally disintegrated. Read Thomas Sowell. That explains black poverty the most asides from low IQs and testosterone levels.
Although R selected behaviour by black males and abandoning their children ultimately is based on genetics and not sociology.
How simple. How elegant