Tags
PHOTO BY AXELLE/BAUER-GRIFFIN/FILMMAGIC/GETTY IMAGES
Last night Wall Street was rocked by the stunning news that Oprah was resigning from the board of Weight Watchers and giving all her shares to the museum of African American history.
The sheer POWER of Oprah is such that the news sent investors into a panic and Weight Watchers stock tumbled 25%. If any other entertainer had resigned from a brand, no one would care but Oprah has become so deeply entrenched in the elite that even the New York Times covered the story.
Even more shocking, the resignation happened right as the 70-year-old icon has had tongues wagging with her breathtaking weight loss.
Oprah left Weight Watchers not because she lost faith in the company, nor because she has a disagreement with management, but because their decision to move towards weight loss drugs creates a conflict of interest. Oprah wants the integrity to help people with their weight without trying to profit from it.
“Nobody does the right thing all the time but Oprah does the right thing more often than anyone else,” once said the late pioneering journalist Barbara Walters.
“My integrity is worth more than money,” she said to thundering applause as she tearfully said her goodbyes.
Although the average (self-made) billionaire has a very superior IQ of 130, some cut ethical corners and don’t fully appreciate abstract moral concepts like “conflict of interest”.
But growing up a poor, illegitimate, sexually abused black looking black female with fat genes, Oprah needed a freakishly big brain to become the most worshiped billionaire on the planet. This huge brain makes her at least 10 IQ points smarter than even the average self-made billionaire, and that in turn makes her more ethical, upper class, socially skilled, emotionally sensitive, entertaining and creative.
While other rich people are busy reading about stock prices or buying football teams or just watching TV, you can find the upper class Oprah sitting under a tree, quietly reading a great work of fiction at her $100 million Santa Barbara mansion or on her thousand acres of pristine Hawaii land, with no one around for miles except for a servant to bring her some tea.
Brain size matters.
Pumpkin Person 
IQ = 0.109677(cubic centimeters) + 67.58943
Oprah
290 = 0.109677(2,029) + 67.58943
162 = 0.33(290 – 100) + 100
IQ = 162
Literally posting equations…. and you still think you don’t have autism.
Why are you worried about him having autism when you have it yourself. You were INDEPENDENTLY suspected of it by not one but two different psychologists & were further diagnosed by Loaded & Melo. You have all the symptoms:
Narrow interests & restricted behavior: You literally can’t go a day without talking about Jews and autism. And those are just the comments people see. I could literally fill a huge book with all your comments on those topics I didn’t post.
Impaired social interaction: You’ve been fired 15 times. You’re incapable of living independently. You haven’t showered for months. You admitted yourself that your social maturation was slow. Your only friend growing up had autism.
Face it Pill, you’re an autist. The self-hating kind too!
Physician, heal thyself.
Are you going to unban my hard hitting criticisms of your religious totem and debate properly or are you bgoing to continue down this rabbit hole of pretending I have autism which literally nobdoy believes, not even Melo and RR, who only say that because I bash beloved blacky so much.
Yeah, I wasn’t just trolling. The only thing keeping me from being 100% positive about his autism was his paranoia. I haven’t met a lot of paranoid autists. That said, I’ve only known a few autists in general.
However, I did a cursory google search and found this blog post written by a guy who has both Autism and Schizophrenia, and apparently autists have similar levels of paranoia to schizo’s they just manifest it in a different way. It’s very very possible that Philo is autistic.
Autism and Paranoia: Autistic pattern recognition when it runs away – Emergent Divergence
I think what makes Pill unique is he’s an ironic autist in the sense that his obsession is with people (Jews, autists) unlike the stereotypical autist who is obsessed with calendars and licence plates. This confuses him into thinking he can’t be autistic because he has some understanding of socially sophisticated topics, but his understanding comes from decades of obsessive focus, not natural social talent. When he tries to function in the real World his natural social impairments impede him.
You two clowns are hilarious. Puppy has the worst social intelligence in the comment section. Melo diagnosed HIMSELF with autism so clearly doesnt know what the hell it means.
I’m the only person in the comment section actually tested for autism and I don’t have it. not even close. Poor psychiatrists with low social intelligence mix up paranoia with autism and think they are the same thing because of ‘obsessiveness’. Its like rote learning your psychology degree. Without intuition you don’t know what the hell the conditions actually are.
I might have the best intuition in the comment section. i can diagnose autism in about 2 or 3 comments, and always successfully.
I’m more socially intelligent than you which is why I can hold a job and you can’t. You were never tested for autism. You took a meaningless questionnaire and basically declared yourself not autistic. LOL! There is no validated test for autism that can be performed on a living person.
” Melo diagnosed HIMSELF with autism”
Well, I might have it. Clearly not as bad as yours, though.
“Poor psychiatrists with low social intelligence mix up paranoia with autism and think they are the same thing because of ‘obsessiveness’.”
Nope. If you read the actual study the researchers showcased the autists have social cynicism. Meaning they tend to think he worst of people and their intentions.
Whereas individuals with SCZP were most inclined to strongly endorse items related to perceived victimization and the threat of harm, individuals with ASD were unique in showing a pattern of responses that emphasized cynical bias concerning the motivations and intentions of others…….Factor 2 was driven by a separation between the ASD and SCZP groups and reveals a qualitative difference in the type of paranoia endorsed in autism, specifically a type of “social cynicism” that appears exclusive to the ASD group….Analysis of the question-response levels that contribute to Factor 2 and share the same side of factor space as the ASD group indicates that ASD paranoia is reflective, in some respects, of social cynicism (Bond, Leung, Au, Tong, & Chemonges-Nielson, 2004; Leung & Bond, 2004), leading us to label factor two “Cynicism.” These question-response levels, such as 12.5 (“Most people make friends because friends are likely to be useful to them”) and 16.4 (“I tend to be on my guard with people who are somewhat more friendly than I expected”)
So, not only are the researchers not conflating paranoia with obsessiveness, they also completely destroy your pet theory about Autists not being able to see bad intentions. If anything, it’s the opposite. Holy shit, this utterly eviscerates all of your theories. How does that feel?
My social cynicism is what was keeping me from thinking I was autistic, and now I’m not sure. I always thought autistic people didn’t see bad intentions in others the way I was able to.
The difference in my abilities with Melo is simple. When I say someone has autism, they usually admit a professional has diagnosed them or admit to other autistic traits.
When Melo diagnoses himself with autism, its clear he has no working idea what the hell it looks like it someone. Zero autistic people like rap or use language the way Melo uses it. Zero.
When I say someone has autism, they usually admit a professional has diagnosed them or admit to other autistic traits.
1) Other people also recognize when people seem autistic, they just have the social intelligence to not say anything.
2) I don’t doubt you have some skill at recognizing autism but it’s because you’ve been obsessed with the topic for decades and not because you have social intelligence, intuition or understanding. You’re basically the same as Rain Man but instead of being obsessed with numbers, your special interests are autism and Jews. You’re like machine learning that’s been programmed to recognize signs of autism, by spending thousands of hours being trained on it, but you’d never be a good psychologist just like Rain Man would never be a good mathematician. Those jobs require creative people like Melo and I.
However you might make a good AI to assist us. In fact machine learning can already diagnose breast cancer better than doctors. Your computer like brain has been training itself to do the same for autism and your autism gives you excellent attention to detail.
Zero autistic people like rap
Jesus Christ you’re an idiot. If I ever say anything that dumb can someone please shoot me.
pumpkin said: There is no validated test for autism that can be performed on a living person.
exactly
autism and schizophrenia are both genetic, meaning the phenotypes come from protein complexes in the brain and nervous system.
pill thinks I am autistic because of his stereotypes of autism not any actual scientific reasoning of what autism is. I told him several times autism is genetic and he keeps insisting that autism can only be about “his preconceived notions of what autism traits are”.
To pill: Autism is not sensuality, it is not impulsiveness, it is not violent, it is the opposite of naivety. It is not extraverted. Social intelligence is the only thing he thinks defines autism because all these traits are anti-social.
The crap pill has in his head is that autism is defined by these phenotypes not the actual genetics of brain metabolism. If you don’t socialize you are autistic, anything that prevents you from socializing is an autistic trait. – pill is stupid.
The opposite of autism to pill is taking advantage of other by social intelligence. That means he thinks social is is the ability to con and scheme and dominate others. His whole issue is he sees that happening all the time in banking and high society. So it must be true. To pill predation is the opposite of autism. pill has a warped mind.
To be clear, social intelligence is that ability to know the way people are just as much as knowing what people will do.
pill thinks I can be taken advantage of. he thinks I am weak because I do not interact with people in certain ways. – what I observe is that people can be trusted or not trusted, because they have cognitive deficits or emotional deficits.
Why should I have to interact with deficient people like pill and rr? that is dumb.
The limit of what I do is to look at who will not be stupid with me.
my theory of mind is much higher than pill
my scientific knowledge is higher than rr
and I am not assholes like them
why are you bragging about being autistic? Autism is a very serious disorder.
most autists feel pride in being “different” and it can have positive effects on society but 4 the individual autism is a terrible disease 2 have!
I do in fact believe Pill has the autism but it’s masked by his schizophrenia if anything.
I mainly have anxiety because I’ve been treated poorly not schizophrenia autism or any other variety of disorders….
if you’ve actually been diagnosed with autism I would take it very seriously it can hurt you in so many ways.
Puppy unhide my comments. Marsha agrees with me. Low IQ ‘woke’ Melo agrees with you. Tell me which one you would rather have agree with you.
tucker carlson just revealed himself to be a LIAR and/or autist in his lex friedman interview.
he said (i paraphrase):
“how can there be neo-nazis in ukraine or anywhere else? mein kampf isn’t das kapital.”
maybe he’s just stupid.
nazism is NOT hitlerism.
correct!
but it is a moment in the weltgeist. it is a SERIOUS intellectual movement.
unfortunately.
Even PP doesn’t suck Oprah’s geriatric chocolate futa dick this hard. Unless I’m off the beat, there’s never been any confirmation that Oprah approached Turgenev (largest recorded brain in history). Besides, I don’t even think Turgenev was 165+, and I absolutely love his writing. Where does this regression equation come from?
I’m not trying to go all anecdotal on you, but big tech is replete with people far smarter than Oprah who likely meet the criteria for ASPD. There may be a small positive correlation between intelligence and ethics, but there are large independent correlations between both IQ and psychopathy and success. Oprah shouldn’t be a token black swan. Try to stop being Nassim Nicholas Taleb for a second and consider that any one elite has profoundly limited impact on our world. Consider further that image management can net you more bucks than fulfilling a contract.
I wouldn’t expect Oprah to know this, but GLP-1 agonists are a very promising approach to weight loss/management and blood sugar/ diabetes control. We know that people who take GLP-1 agonists like Wegovy/semaglutide (ozempic) along with lifestyle changes lose around 33 pounds. And we know the mechanisms that cause the weight loss—reduced appetite, better satiety, inhibited fat absorption.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8189979/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9945324/
“The mean weight loss difference between GLP-1 RAs and placebo as add-on to lifestyle intervention in patients with diabetes was 4% to 6.2% compared to 6.1 to 17.4% in people without diabetes. Semaglutide compared to liraglutide resulted in greater weight loss.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9063254/
Looks like Oprah should have used that big brain of hers to figure out thsg GLP-1 agonists are the future of weight loss, along with lifestyle changes, of course. Because we know that most all diets fail.
I don’t buy it, appetite and satiety is irreducible to the physical.
LOL!
Funny, but people on these drugs report being fuller and sated longer and that’s one way how these drugs help cause weight loss. Maybe one day Oprah can use that big brain of hers to acknowledge this, and that these drugs do help people.
😂
A couple years ago RR laughed at me remarking that physical exhaustion often effects our “mental energy” which objectively decreases our ability to solve mental problems. But again, Fruh et al published a paper that suggests direct physical-mental causation and mapping and hence “reduction” so its fine.
I don’t remember that. Of course being physically exhausted affects* the mental. If I’m tired from deadlifts at 95 percent 1rm, I won’t be able to think as clearly as I do until I eat something and rest.
But what does any of this have to do with what I said about GLP-1 agonists? I understand if PP’s commentariat doesn’t find things like that interesting, but Oprah is clearly delusional in her disregard of drugs to help combat obesity.
How is she disregarding drugs? A weight loss drug is what helped her with her latest weight loss.
Oh yea duh I forgot about that… My bad!
So disregard my first comment about Oprah disregarding the drugs and just take the information I gave about the promise of the drugs. Excuse my error.
That said, I don’t think it’s a COI, it’s just another arrow in the quiver to combat obesity.
I think you said intelligence is immeasurable and when I gave a rough example of human beings obviously having varying levels of cognitive ability (in basically whatever way you want to define “cognitive ability”) based on their physical state, which is evident to anyone who has ever lived, you denied that it showed anything about intelligence being measurable.
Yea I don’t think that follows that just because people can be physically tired and their mental is affected that intelligence is measurable. I don’t deny that the physical (brain) is necessary for the mental, but it follows that if one is physically tired then it would have an effect on their cognition. But it doesn’t mean that cognition is itself measurable since it’s irreducible.
Take the last word on this. We can return to this conversation another day of course but I’m interested in talking about other things right now.
Even if you’re right that only physical things can be measured, ultimately IQ tests are measuring behavior and behavior is physical.
At the very best IQ tests show the dominant culture one was exposed to due to the item content of the test (due to different cultures having different cultural and psychological tools). They’re just certain kinds of questions one is or isn’t likely to be exposed to based on their experience.
I don’t think it’s correct to say that it’s a measure of behavior, since it’s a lot of rote memorization along with the Raven being the most enculturated test of all, it’s clear that scoring well on IQ tests is due to cultural exposure and experience.
I agree we don’t need to debate about this anymore because we basically said everything that could be said about our respective opinions, although we could make them more succinct.
I’ll just say that if you think IQ is a measure of how much one has been exposed to X culture, rather than any more general capacity, yet you think physical tiredness can affect the ability to even answer questions based on X culture to the degree you have been exposed to it, that is obviously inconsistent. It’s like saying the only reason people use caffeine before doing certain kinds of mental work or taking a test is for a placebo, because obviously, they aren’t being exposed to culture any more as a result of being caffeinated and it can’t increase a general capacity for intelligence because there is no such thing.
I’ll leave it to others as to whether that seems logically consistent or not.
RR knows what hes saying is really weird and logically absurd. But hes doing it to make the world a better place!!
Cool story bro. Tell me more about what I believe.
And lurker I don’t believe in a “general capacity” since it’s either falsified or unfalsifiable and tautological. Being tired can affect how you answer questions and caffeine increases alertness and whatnot, but that doesn’t mean that psychological traits are measurable. I don’t see how that follows.
The world is a better place if people believe in blacks hard enough goddamit!!!
RR, just subsitute “altertness” with “general cognitive capacity”, which is for the purpose of problem solving, is literally what it is, and you will see the contradiction.
It’s not like people primarily use caffeine in tests so that they move their hands faster. It’s so that they can solve problems using their minds. (Which is why people use it for ANY cognitively demanding task)
There is no contradiction and that still doesn’t mean the mental is measurable.
Goahead and demonstrate the so-called contradiction.
Replace “alertness” with “cognitive ability” in your statements.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction
Caffeine increases general cognitive ability (“alertness).
General cognitive ability does not exist because psychological traits are not measurable.
I’m sorry you’re too busy making 100 dollars an hour to understand how to read my very direct, coherent comments. Maybe next time try fucking yourself? I’m getting tired of you treating other commentors like programmable AI logic bots to bounce your arguments and citations off of instead of human beings.
Now you’re just equivocating. Can you demonstrate the contradiction or not?
Saying something doesn’t exist or isn’t measurable while at the same time saying it increases (we’re talking about “general cognitive capacity” which I’ve shown is equal to “altertness” when it comes to problem-solving).
By the way, alertness is a psychological trait, regardless of whether it is equivalent to general intelligence. Same as with “satiety”. Even if you want to argue that alertness is a specific kind of locally-focused intelligence (rather than daydreaming or being distracted) it’s still a direct mapping of the physical to the mental, in a completely measurable way.
Just demonstrate the contradiction. And it’s a fact that “general intelligence” doesn’t exist—for the thousandth time, Spearman’s is refuted and Jensen’s is an unfalsifiable tautology.
Show me how alertness (measurable) and satiety (measurable) are not “psychological traits”?
Show me what other reason people want to be more alert when taking tests or doing any other cognitive-loaded activity besides the measurable cognitive differences between being alert and not?
Go pay the taxes for more economic refugees and maybe leave the theorizing about the mind to people who actually can actually compare concepts and deduce similarities rather than endless differentiation and stopping at that.
I’m going full Santo now on you (except more homophobic). You’re a blatant lying propagandist if you can’t tell how alertness and intelligence or cognitive capacity are related, and how if one is measurable, than that implies that the other is measurable in some context. Bye.
Where is the contradiction? You have to demonstrate a contradiction has occurred and there is a specific way to do so. So do it, if it’s actually a contradiction.
So you’re not going to answer my questions even though I directly answered yours? Saying something is measurable and not measurable (altertness or satiety, psychological traits) at the same time is a contradiction. I’m sorry you’ve suddenly lost the ability to connect words to the other words when it’s become inconvenient.
Go work for those 100 dollar bills and be sure to pay for some immigrants sytematically victimized by social constructs.
You didn’t show a contradiction “I said “And we know the mechanisms that cause the weight loss—reduced appetite, better satiety, inhibited fat absorption.”
Satiety is based on self-reported hunger, desire to eat, hunger, fullness, prospective food consumption while satiation through meal size/food intake.
“Combined with Wegovy and sensible eating habits, I feel fuller longer and I am sated quicker. I also put fewer things on my plate and eat more nutrient-dense foods high in protein. So this keeps me sated.” That’s why people lose weight on those drugs.
The contradiction is that people are measuring psychological traits, yet you say that’s impossible. Are you retarded?
How do I measure something that isn’t measurable?
Why is it important for me to be alert and focus on the problem in front of me if I want to solve it, rather than something else if the direction or application of my cognition does not matter, because it is not measurable? Why not simply think about something else and answer randomly?
Why do I need to be aware of a problem to solve it if awareness is immeasurable because it is a psychological trait and one cannot quantify whether someone is aware of something because that would require an objective yes-or-no binary measurement?
Are binaries no longer measurements? Is 1 no longer objectively different from 0? If I add two one’s together do I not have more? Is 0 no longer the additive identity? Is it not true that if I’m aware of one fact, and another, separate fact, that I know two facts, and that this makes me objectively more knowledgeable than only knowing one fact? Or is reading and learning for morons? Is being a voracious reader quantifiable? Is the heterosexuality of one’s hairstyle quantifiable? Is it all social constructs… all the way down?
These are all important questions I expect no shorter than 2000-word blog posts about each.
Can you please leave this blog already? (And take some immigrants into your home… preferably African young males. Your guidance on systemic social constructivism is necessary for their prospering.)
You clearly can’t justify your claim of my supposed contradiction. And satiation is measured through how much food (how many kcal) one invests. That something isn’t measurable doesn’t mean that something doesn’t exist.
No, the fact is you’re ontically, definitionally closed to seeing your contradiction. To you, the mental is irreducible to the physical, which is simply based on false tautological reasoning that presupposes any physical basis for the mental, or any more common medium. You then refuse the idea that intelligence can be measured because you view all psychological traits as inseparable and unquantifiable based on similar spurious reasoning, without having any apriori justification based on minimum model of cognition.
Therefore, you see no contradiction with stating that awareness or alertness is necessary for tests, yet IQ doesn’t measure a more general cognitive capacity than acculturation. You see no contradiction with physical chemicals leading to measurably, replicable subjective experiences like decreasing satiety. You see no contradiction with the intelligence being completely immeasurable yet physically large brains being necessary for human minds.
I know that cognition minimally deals with information processing. I know that because we can compare and contrast the physical and the mental, or the objective and subjective, that they at least have some commonality (for example, both consisting of information, or structure and state). I have a more coherent model and understand the difference and commonalities between the physical and mental. That’s all it is.
Now get to training those African migrants you love so much!
I gave you a link to help you try to demonstrate my so-called contradiction and you still haven’t.
“You see no contradiction with physical chemicals leading to measurably, replicable subjective experiences like decreasing satiety. You see no contradiction with the intelligence being completely immeasurable yet physically large brains being necessary for human minds.”
(1) I just explained to you how it occurs, you want a more in depth mechanistic explanation? (This is something that doesn’t exist for “general cognitive ability” by the way. Again: Spearman’s was falsified and Jensen’s is an unfalsifiable tautology.)
(2) Psychological traits are immeasurable (non-quantitative), but it doesn’t follow that since a human brain is necessary for psychological traits that psychological traits are measurable, since the mind isn’t the brain.
“false tautological reasoning”
Go ahead and demonstrate the tautology.
“I gave you a link to help you try to demonstrate my so-called contradiction and you still haven’t.”
You gave me a link about “proof by contradiction”, as if I don’t understand what a contradiction is. It’s clear as day.
The problem is, you can refuse to see the contradiction if you change the meaning and context of words when you like, because you have a differing (incoherent) model.
“(1) I just explained to you how it occurs, you want a more in depth mechanistic explanation? (This is something that doesn’t exist for “general cognitive ability” by the way. Again: Spearman’s was falsified and Jensen’s is an unfalsifiable tautology.)”
So you explained how a mental change in satiety reduces to a physical change in chemicals or kcal eaten? So you agree with me?
“(2) Psychological traits are immeasurable (non-quantitative), but it doesn’t follow that since a human brain is necessary for psychological traits that psychological traits are measurable, since the mind isn’t the brain.”
You still have no answer for anything about the necessary size or locality of the physical brain if the mental and physical do not share a more common medium.
No explanation for why physical proximity and awareness of information helps one process that information if nothing about the mental is measurable or reducible to the physical.
“Go ahead and demonstrate the tautology.”
Something like this:
The mental is immeasurable and unquantifiable because only the physical is measurable and quantifiable and since the mental is not the physical… because it is immeasurable and unquantifiable. (Even though everything referred to as physical is also mental, meaning that at least a subset of mental objects are measurable within the mind and meaning there is common structure between the two)
All thoughts, ideas, percepts, etc. (anything mental) that can be indentified has no meaningful replicability or countability, therefore we can’t make any meaningful measurement of it. (You define the mental as nonreplicable and unquantifiable, despite using the same words to mean the same things and comparing mental observations with others)
Measurability just comes from seeing something common, and counting an occurence of that. The common part gives the axis, the cardinality gives the quantity. This applies to mental percepts just as it does to physical “observations”, which are just other mental percepts.
There is a good way to demonstrate a contradiction, and I gave it to you.
I said *satiation*. It’s distinct from satiety. Nothing you said refutes the claim they psychological traits aren’t quantitative. There’s no specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit for any psychological trait.
“The mental is immeasurable and unquantifiable because only the physical is measurable and quantifiable and since the mental is not the physical… because it is immeasurable and unquantifiable.“
That’s not the argument. The argument is that, a priori, we know that there is a distinction between M and P. The argument is:
Mind is first-personal and subjective. Science is third-personal and objective. So science can’t study the mind meaning the mind is immeasurable.
The assertion that M is immeasurable and non-quantitative comes from the understanding that measurement and quantification pertains to P. Since the mental encompasses thoughts, emotions, and consciousness—which are inherently abstract and subjective—then methods of measurement used for physical phenomena aren’t applicable. Thus, the challenges in quantifying M arise from the fundamental differences between P and M, rather than a direct assertion of immeasurability based on the absence of physical characteristics.
People on the drugs I referenced above eat less food because they feel fuller. Meal size/kcal consumed is an objectively measurable phenomenon.
And GCA is a myth—Spearman’s is falsified and Jensen’s is an unfalsifiable tautology.
Sorry, the second tautology should be more like: The mind is subjective, the subjective is immeasurable, because the subjective is defined as that which is immeasurable.
But the point is you think there is nothing that could ever be meaningfully replicable about the mind or its structure, and hence nothing usefully measurable, and you base this on not thinking that anything subjective is measurable in any useful way. Because I’m pretty sure you’d agree that different thoughts can have repeatable elements, but you’d disagree that represents anything about cognition being usefully measurable (because theoretically infinite types of mental perceptions exist so one would have to subjectively decide on the context from which to measure). The problem here is even if we agree the structure of information is subjective, it still objectively exists, just as the objective “physical” world exists. Therefore there is at least one universally objective (shared subjective) context from which we could form a measurement of the mental, which spans a context much greater than specific localistic human cultural ones, to a more general form based on the universal form of information itself (such as mathematics or language… which is kind of important as we’d not be able to even exist in the same universe if we didn’t share informational structure).
Anyway, I’m still waiting to see how much of your taxes personally go to educating the black youth and amnesty for your illegally socially constructed friends.
“Sorry, the second tautology should be more like: The mind is subjective, the subjective is immeasurable, because the subjective is defined as that which is immeasurable.”
Quote me saying something like this. I gave the argument above – it’s not circular.
Thanks, I already know what a contradiction is. Maybe focus on paying economic migrants their rightful gibs.
So you’re stating that they eat less for no reason? Just magic or randomness? No connection to their mental state? Wow. Very great coherent belief system. Young South Amerindians need your money.
Fundamental differences? What about the fundamental similarities? They are both informational. I’ve defined what’s necessary for something to be measurable.
Nothing is directly measurable except through M. Meaning M must be structurally greater or equal to P when it comes to informationally evaluating measurements of P. It’s called an isomorphism.
The tautology is you defining the commonality between M and P out of existence, and stating M has no quantitative aspect because only P has a quantitative aspect.
Objective science based on P requires the replicability of subjective percepts, and subjectively defined language. Meaning that you have already formed the basis of measurement of M. You’ve created an axis of similarity for a category (perceptions), and have quantified them by stating they are objective because more than one of the perceptions exists (replicability).
Please take on more customers to make more money for Zelensky and Netanyahu. They need it to kill more social constructions.
They “feel” fuller? I didn’t realize that was a physical third-person objective measurement. I thought feelings were mental. Interesting.
How does it feel to realize that while you respond to me, young non-European males from across the globe do not have access to new smart phones, Western hotel rooms and can’t be forgiven for sexually assaulting young Italian women because you’re not working hard enough? Get to it, champ!
Put simply: If psychological traits are measurable, then there must be a specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit for [psychological trait]. But there is no specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit for [psychological trait]. Therefore psychological traits are immeasurable, and aren’t quantitative. The fact that no psychometrician has refuted the argument is telling.
“Thanks, I already know what a contradiction is.”
It also shows how to demonstrate one. Or you could quote me. (You won’t.)
“So you’re stating that they eat less for no reason?”
I just told you how satiation is measured. I said above we know the mechanisms for why the drugs work. Semaglutide reduces hunger so people eat less.
Objective science based on third-personal observation but mind is subjective and first-personal so science can’t study the mind. The argument is a simple one.
We hhave RCTs showing this.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5573908/
There is a mind body connection.
The body is measurable by its actions.
We can tell they way the mind is by the body’s actions.
Thus the mind is measurable.
–
I can tell by observation who is stupid and who is smart.
Observation is a measurement of intelligence.
Or intelligence would not exist as a concept.
“Put simply: If psychological traits are measurable, then there must be a specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit for [psychological trait]. But there is no specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit for [psychological trait]. Therefore psychological traits are immeasurable, and aren’t quantitative. The fact that no psychometrician has refuted the argument is telling.”
Which one of these is physical? Object? Measurement? Unit? Specified? Which one of these WORDS is physical and not mental?
Do you understand the circularity of your worldview?
Put simply: All physical “objects” are mental objects. You can’t externally measure a mental object unless it is external to your mind. Objects like brains are external, but mental states are not, therefore we cannot measure them except for ourselves. Possibly, if you wanted to, you could yourself measure your own states by how long they lasted and use that as a unit. It’s certainly what many of us do. Other units that measure the degree of some trait could also exist, but those are obviously dependent on direct experience or external effects which could not be directly linked to the experience from an external observer. If psychological states were not repeatable, there would be no words for them.
Anyway, I’m tired you talking to me when young migrant scholars await your donations. Why are you running a blog? Do you part.
What’s the specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit for that?
Hunger is a subjective feeling. Are you retarded? Serious question.
So objective science is based on subjective, immeasurable feelings even though subjective feelings are not objective and have no intersect with the objective.
The argument is a “circular” (or just fallacious) one, you meant.
I’ve quoted you many times, now and then. You have to be capable of understanding the implications of your own arguments. Quoting your erroneous statements won’t make you understand your error since the source (your incoherent model) has not been fixed.
Show me the young African migrants you’ve sponsored (you won’t)
“What’s the specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit for that?”
How can we rationally speak of anything physical like “objects” if the physical does not directly correspond to something mental, hence partially eliminating the distinction between physical and mental, in the ways I’ve painstakingly described? How can we subjectively measure something objective if the subjective does not in some way directly, logically map to the objective, showing they share some commonality, in the ways I’ve painstakingly described? (By the way I already gave the three things you asked for, in case you’re blind, the experienced emotion, the experiencer, and time of experiencing the emotion)
How come you are still responding to me and not teaching young disenfranchised cultural enrichers about American racetalk? Focus on the problems that matter! I need to know why it’s OK for young Muslim males to sexually assault young Italian women. Everyone needs to know! Come on!
I will not allow you waste more time debating metaphysics. Young cultural enrichers need your income for their hotel rooms and pre-paid credit cards.
“Hunger is a subjective feeling. Are you retarded? Serious question.”
I explained how satiety is measured. Are you retarded?
My argument on science and the third-person is sound.
“Quoting your erroneous statements won’t make you understand your error since the source (your incoherent model) has not been fixed.”
Should be easy to quote one since it’s been so many times.
We can measure X if there is a specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit for X. The specified measured object is the stick, the object of measurement (property to be measured) is length, and cm, in etc are the measurement units.
So what’s the specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit for [psychological trait]?
rr: the mental cannot be measured
rr: intelligence is mental
–
lurker: the mental cannot be mapped to the physical
lurker: the only way to communicate is physically
–
C: intelligence does not exist according to rr logic
–
Anime: we have only one way to communicate intelligence and that is physical observation.
Anime: if physical observation is not a measurement then communication of intelligence is impossible.
C: RaceRealist is stupid because he denies physical communication as a means to measure intelligence.
I think it exists and I did argue for it back in September. But intelligence as Spearman and Jensen think of it is either falsified (Spearman’s) or an unfalsifiable tautology (Jensen’s). So what’s the specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit for that? I know it’s a tough question, seeing as in 40 years there’s only one response (Brand et al 2003) and it’s a joke as I’ve shown.
rr: I think it exists
–
What is it then?
It should involve something to do with some people having more and some having less in different areas of problems solving?
We should be able to tell who can draw and the degree to which they can in relativity to others:
You gave no argument against my explanation of measurement for an emotion (one type of psychological trait). In fact, time feeling an emotion is one way we measure it ourselves. You have no response to this, because you have apriori defined all cognition as subjective.
However, by stating all observations are subjective and unquantifiable, you are stating they are not replicable (since that is the basis for measurement or quantifiability… repetition of some unit) and hence destroying empirical science and your idea of “objectivity” itself, and your use of language to communicate, for that matter.
Also you gave no explanation about locality, awareness, size of the brain, etc. “Necessary but not sufficient” is not an argument when you have no model. And denying any common structure between the physical and mental means you don’t have a model.
I don’t need to constantly quote you, moron. If my explanation shows that intelligence is measurable, and that psychological traits are measurable, and you state they aren’t, it’s enough. Quoting you talking about hunger having actual physical implications is just one example. I’m sorry you didn’t like it because it wasn’t formed in propositional calculus but in natural language (through which anyone with an average IQ could infer the propositional calculus form).
I can only explain this in so many words. I’d have better luck teaching a young economic migrant that rape is a big no-no in the West!
I’ve given you a model for IQ (binary distinguishable information as measured according to a general model for information, i.e. language and mathematics and whatever encompasses them like logic). You’ve invented your own ideas about action potentials as a manbunned maverick of Jew science yet you deny me or anyone else offering novel solutions?
How is “time of experiencing the emotion” a measurement unit? What’s the argument that emotions are physical? The thing is, you’re claiming I’m saying X, but you can’t quote me saying X.
The mind interacts with the physical world through APs. Brain size and complexity are necessary but not determinative for the nature of consciousness nor the mind’s properties. My theory posits that while the brain facilitates the interactions with the physical world ultimately, agency and consciousness are due to the mind which integrates physical and non-physical elements to shape human cognition and consciousness.
“I’ve given you a model for IQ (binary distinguishable information as measured according to a general model for information, i.e. language and mathematics and whatever encompasses them like logic).”
So state the model.
The unit is time, clearly.
I’m quoting you as contradicting yourself and then running it back stating “hunger is just self-reported” with absolutely no explanation of why an emotional change caused by a physical chemical would be replicable if the M and P did not share common structure.
I never said emotions are physical, I said the physical was mental, or at least only known and measurable by the mind, and measurement itself is a mental phenomenon defined on mental categories.
It’s not a coherent theory because you deny common structure for the physical and mental. “Integrates physical and non-physical elements to shape human cognition and consciousness”. There are no means to do this if you have no common medium between the physical and non-physical. You thjink the mind is just subjective. Therefore, there is not even a start for your theory as it does not escape subjectivity.
I just did, information as it is measured as distinguishable and identifiable. In other words, the processing of information. It’s enough to know that I at least admit that the subjective and objective, and mental and physical have common structure so I can at least make a theory about objective truths with my mind.
“The unit is time”
How is it coherent that the unit of measurement for emotions is time? How can that be likened to actual measurements like length or weight?
Measurement itself is based on physical quantities and physical objects. If both you and I measure the length of a blade of grass, we’ll come to similar measurements.
I’d say it is coherent since even though I do deny the “common structure” of M and P, the novelness of my theory comes in with using APs to act as the interface between them, allowing us to carry out freely willed actions.
So what’s the specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit for your model? Can you explain the similarities between it and actual physical measurements that have known SMO, OoM and MUs?
“How is it coherent that the unit of measurement for emotions is time? How can that be likened to actual measurements like length or weight?”
How can time, which is part of the speed of the light (distance over time), which is the standard scientific basis for length, be likened to an actual measurement? Is time not a fundamental OBJECTIVE constant in the universe by which we measure length be a coherent unit of measurement?
Are the clocks lying to you? Do you have trouble remembering what you did for the last 5 years? Is life a blur? Where are your car keys?
How do self-reported measures exist if selves can’t measure emotions, or anything for that matter, as mind is mental and not physical?
Based on our subjective perceptions which have no way to interface with the physical because they are completely subjective. That’s what dualism means. No shared structure = No interface. That’s what allows to you to blatantly deny that psychological traits are measurable apriori.
There is no “interface” between something with no common structure. You’d know that if you had a model that wasn’t just gut feelings. Once you admit there are at least some commonalities between M and P (being information, being binary identities, having structure, etc.) you’ll realize you have no ground to support the idea that IQ is just acculturation.
SMO: Quantity of Information
OoM: Information
MU: One distinguishable unit of information.
Information is defined by its attributes. You have to specify the attribute to distinguish information by. Thankfully, we live in a coherent, logical, stable physical universe, so there are plenty of shared but replicable attributes to measure one’s intelligence according to.
What you said about time didn’t answer my question. My argument states that the interface between M and P is APs. That we come to similar measurements shows that measurements are reproducible. Despite the differences between M and P, APs bridge the gap between the two substances. IQ IS mere accumulation to the items and culture of the test—Jensen’s default hypothesis is false so the black-white IQ gap is environmentally caused. The SMO isn’t a tangible like temperature or length or mass and this undermines the whole entire measurement process. The so-called measurement unit is also nonsense in terms of IQ—it lacks clarity. The issue is, that people are ranked by their performance on IQ tests doesn’t justify the claim that they are ranked according to a property revealed by their performance and that’s what IQ-ists clearly don’t understand.
Answering your question didn’t answer your question?
No such thing as an interface between things that have no commonalities. Of course, since you have no model and just say things it doesn’t matter does it?
No it doesn’t, since you deny that subjective mental percepts have any objective nature, or share any structure with objectivity.
Possibly they bridge the gap… because of the SIMILARITIES.
Sure if you want to make up things and ignore everything I’ve written or anyone else has that objects to your statement. Locality, awareness, size of brain, etc.
Define tangible. “perceptible by touch.” A perception. So both are perceptions. Both are measurable. Manbuns may feel good to you, but they hurt those around you.
“Clarity” = the quality of being coherent and intelligible. Given distinguishable information itself is literally the basis of all definitions, your argument against information being objective, replicable and measurable destroys itself by denying an objective basis for its own premise. Deepthroat a 12 gauge, pull the trigger with your toe.
Sad. We’ll just have to have faith that somehow, the people who built the West, or Japan, or Singapore, and also score higher on IQ tests, also perform cognitively higher than those who built Africa.
“Answering your question didn’t answer your question?”
How is time a measurement unit of emotions? Emotions aren’t physical.
“No such thing as an interface between things that have no commonalities.”
My model shows that APs are the interface between M and P, providing a coherent case that interactionist dualism is true.
“No it doesn’t”
Yes it does. The stick and ruler are right in front of us (the specified measured object and what allows the measurement of the property with the units). We come to the same measurement—10 inches of length of the stick.
APs bridge the gap due to how action are commenced and is consistent with Davidson’s reasons as causes for actions.
“if you want to make things up”
What are you talking about? Provide me references that Jensen’s default hypothesis is true. Because it’s quite obviously false so the gap is environmentally caused.
“BY TOUCH” and they’re measurable since they’re physical.
You need an articulated definition of what is being measured. What is “one distinguishable unit of information” when it forms to IQ scores and IQ testing? Is “one distinguishable unit of information” the unit for IQ? If so, why are IQ points (or SDs) claimed to be the measurement unit? Why do psychometricians (eg Haier) claim that there is no measurement unit for IQ like inches, liters or grams?
“Sad”
What’s the argument that people are ranked by their performance on IQ rate and thus then justifies the claim that they are ranked according to a PROPERTY REVEALED BY THEIR PERFORMANCE?
Holy fuck. Learn to think for a second. It’s a measurement based on how long you experience the emotion. I never said it was externally possible with present tech (which you seem to be assuming).
It doesn’t show that because there is no model. You are literally denying the shared structure between M and P and stating there is somehow a model that incorporates both of them. If a model incorporates two things it must have be able to compare them in some common medium. For example, in language they are both words. In our minds, they are both concepts.
“Right in front of us”, yeah… that’s called a perception. It’s M.
Where does the physical and objective enter here? Replicability of perceptions. Mutual agreement between two people, who say the two are the same.
There is no bridgeable gap between two things that share no common medium (meaning they share structure).
I’m talking about IQ being a general cognitive ability and not mere acculturation. Are you following the conversation at all? That’s the whole point. “DDUUURURUURRUR PROVIDE ME EVIDENCE FOR THE WHOLE THING YOU ARE LITERALLY ARGUING ABOUT AND PROVIDING EVIDENCE FORR”
I suppose you’ve never heard of phantom limbs? Yes we all agree people are really touching something when they’re really touching something (except of course, the fact that we are all waves and atoms are mostly empty space, so it is simply energy or forces overlapping, correlating with a subjective sensation of touch). That doesn’t change the fact that the MEASUREMENT IS PERCEPTUAL.
The distinguishable unit of information depends on the structure of the information. For example, with number memorization it would be each digit. With vocabulary, different words. It just so happens that no matter how you divide information, certain races or groups or people tend to come up on top. The more general the information is, the better those people do.
Obviously IQ has something to do with distinguishable units of information given that is what a number is.
“Sad”
Because IQ tests are meant to test the most general and/or abstract form of information processing rather than knowledge about specific cultures, fields, topics, or languages.
The reason we know that is because information exists, true/false exists and certain things exist and others don’t, and this is stable across time, and hence these stable identities and structures can be counted and put on an axis, and if we test people’s ability to understand, process, etc. these stable, structured, countable, identities, in the most structurally varied possible way, and compare the measured results, we can get an idea of that person’s general ability to deal with and process information.
There is a bit of circularity involved but at least it’s coherent and represents reality (because reality both defines information and IS the information it defines), unlike your model and ideas which don’t.
“It’s a measurement based on how long you experience the emotion”
That’s absolutely nothing like actual measurements though, which is what I’m getting at. And time-based “measurement” of emotions are nothing like true measurement units like grams and it’s relationship to an object.
“there is no model”
Yes there is I described it above.
“that’s called a perception”
That’s called you and I see a stick, we put a ruler to it and come to the same measurement therefore it’s an objective measure.
“Where does the physical and objective enter here”
With the specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit for the stick. More specifically, an item on a scale that we can both see the outcome of the weighing. You, me, and everyone else can see that the scale is calibrated and that the object had a weight.
“There is no bridgeable gap”
There is and I explained it.
“general cognitive ability”
At best, it’s accumulation of one’s acculturation.
Where’s your source? Jensen’s default hypothesis is false so the black-white IQ gap is environmentally caused. See Fagan and Holland’s work. You’re making empirical claims, so you need evidence.
“Obviously IQ has to so with distinguishable units of information”
We went over this back in December. Counted elements in a set aren’t magnitudes.
“IQ tests are mean to test”
What subtests would those be? The issue is that even the most “abstract” subtext—the Raven—is dependent on rules found in middle class homes (receipts here https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/10/06/knowledge-culture-logic-and-iq/). The issue is, the exposure to different cultural and psychological tools over one’s life course which influences their ability to be prepared for the test. Thus, at best, IQ tests show how enculturated one is to the item content on the test.
I didn’t realize time wasn’t a true measurement unit.
Keep covering your eyes and ears to the truth if you want, I guess.
You’re right, it’s a model, an incoherent one that can’t actually exist, but yes, it’s a model.
“that’s called a perception”
What’s it like to turn off your brain (and mind) because you are personally vested in IQ being mere cultural exposure? You’re literally just saying platitudes at this point. WHAT MAKES THE MEASUREMENT OBJECTIVE? SUBJECTIVE REPLICABILITY. You’ve now moved the goalpost to material objects external to the mind as the only thing that are “objective” without giving any apriori reasoning for it.
And once again, it IS the same kind of measurement. Measurement is an abstract concept, it’s a mental concept, it’s a mathematical concept. It’s not a physical-only concept (because there’s no such thing as a physical object without abstract properties… because ALL PROPERTIES ARE ABSTRACT or they AREN’T IDENTIFIABLE and hence NOT MEASURABLE).
“Where does the physical and objective enter here”
Yes we all AGREE, SUBJECTIVELY that something exists and has weight. Where does the objectivity happen? Oh, because WE all AGREE. Because of REPLICABILITY between multiple MINDS. I don’t see anything “purely physical” here.
No you just said APs bridge the gap. That’s not an explanation of how a gap can be bridged even theoretically. Notice how you comb through the fine details of heritability studies (kind of) and refutations of IQ, but lobotomize yourself (I mean your mind, not your brain) when it comes to promoting your theory. That’s called bias, or propaganda.
At best, you repeat yourself 5000000 times and are better off working more to pay for horny migrants in your city.
Whatever the racial differences are or not, and whatever role genes play, that has nothing to do with general cognition existing and being variable.
Reality is full of evidence that it exists, but again, there is a degree of circularity necessary in assuming that the informational substrate of reality is stable enough to adapt to (in the same way that in order to MEASURE A STICK, you CIRCULARLY rely on the objectivity of OTHER MEASUREMENTS, which by the way, ARE ALL PERCEPTIONS that you circularly rely on as being true… something you never seemed to have pondered).
“Obviously IQ has to so with distinguishable units of information”
What? There is literally no other definition for magnitude than that.
“IQ tests are mean to test”
Again, a little of faith (or maybe just understanding how cognition works at some level, as I’ve been trying to show you) is necessary. There is no “perfect” test except reality, which is imperfect. But that’s why it’s been shown that all tests, given enough questions and variability, align with IQ.
Stop beating dead horses until you acknowledge the structural commonalities between the subjective/object M/P.
You’re just saying “look man, there’s a stick, while emotions are in our heads! Time passes, so it’s not as objective as length!” while failing to realize that all the words you use, and all your observations, are M and subjective. The length is based on other lengths, based on other perceptions, often based on our memories, in the PAST.
So to start measuring the stick, you have full faith in your perceptions. You think that because two people can see the same stick, at the same time, that somehow bridges the gap between the subjective and the objective for some reason. You can’t explain how though.
You also can’t explain that in order for an observation or thought to occur, time is necessary. Why? Because there is some sort of extensional separation necessary in order for you to separate yourself from the observation, so any time you recognize that you’ve made an observation outside yourself, that implies some gap between the observer and observation. There is no experience without some form of time. Because experience requires an experiencer, and hence at least two entities, otherwise, it’s inert, like writing with no one to read it (but in reality, just as tree still falls in the woods without a human seeing it, at least the universe has time as a dimension to receive the next moment and hence continue to store the writing).
Yet you devalue time and perceptions as not objective. That’s known as a incoherent model given that the objectivity and even intelligibility of your model depend on them.
I hope someone else is reading this (at least PP) so that they get something out of it, because clearly you don’t.
“I didn’t realize time wasn’t a true measurement unit”
You’re confused – the measurement unit would be seconds or minutes or hours. Reread what I said.
“an incoherent one”
It’s only incoherent if you don’t understand physiology and the argument I mounted for interactionist dualism.
Do you understand that my leg has an objective length which is reproducible by many different observers?
The object on the calibrated scale exists without our minds. Rocks exist without our perception of them.
Mental processes like thoughts, emotions, and desires originate in the mind. The neurons in the brain which are necessary for this to occur then communicate using APs. So when a neuron receives input from another neuron or sensory stimuli, it then integrates the information and generates an AP if the input reaches a certain threshold. So as APs spread across neural pathways, information is transmitted, encoded by the electrical signal. Then at the synaptic junction between neurons, APs trigger the release of neurotransmitters which then act as chemical messengers to facilitate communication between neurons. This then enables the integration of mental processes with the physical functioning of the brain. The neural activity generated by APs then influences the activation of neural circuits responsible for controlling motor functions and behavior. Ultimately, therefore, the integration between mental processes and physical brain activity allows for the translation of cognitive intentions into observable behaviors and actions in the external world. An example will illustrate this:
One has a desire to drink coffee, and it begins as an intention so they have a desire to reach for a cup of coffee and consciously decide to do so. This intention is then translated into neural activity in the brain, which activate the relevant neural circuits which are responsible for motor planning and execution. APs are then generated in the motor neurons, and then they propagate along the axons along the neuron towards the spinal cord. The APs then travel down the spinal cord and reach the motor neurons which innervate the muscles of the arm and hand involved in reaching and grasping. Then at the neuromuscular junction, the APs trigger the release of neurotransmitters like acetylcholine which then bind to receptors on the muscle fibers causing them to contract. The muscle fibers then contract in response to the neurotransmitter release, which then generates the necessary force for one to extend their arm, reach out, and grab their cup of coffee. The coordinated activation of specific muscle groups which is orchestrated by APs allows the individual to successfully carry out the intended action of reaching for their coffee cup to bring it toward them. Thus, the integration of mental intention with neural activation and muscle contractions demonstrates how APs bridge the gap between the mental and the physical, enabling action.
There’s your physiology lesson for the day. You can find a helpful diagram here.
“general cognition existing”
Yet the two “best theories” are either refuted or an unfalsifiable tautology—makes sense. And at the end of the day, due to the nature of IQ testing, they’re necessarily culture-bound, and—again—since Jensen’s default hypothesis is false, then environment explains the black-white IQ gap. Differences in experience account for IQ score differences.
Oh I see, you had no argument and were just prolongating the conversation with diversions for no reason. If you admit seconds are measurement, what is the debate?
No such thing as “interactionist dualism”. That’s an oxymoron. “a theory that considers reality to consist of two irreducible elements or modes.” You can’t interact between two irreducible things.
As I’ll explain below, you don’t have a informational interface that can be modeled in a consistent way with dualism besides blankly stating “that’s just what APs do”.
Do you understand that it is the reproducibility of subjective observations that makes it objective, and you have no explanation for how the subjective somehow becomes the objective?
Do rocks exist without a common medium that reduces both mind and matter to it (i.e. the fundamental substrate of the universe)? No.
Why are you saying “in”. There is no “in”. That’s a physical term. What’s your model? Stop making a mereological fallacy by reducing the mind to spatial measurements!
So physical neurons are necessary for completely immeasurable, nonspatial, subjective phenomena to occur, in an undisclosed location?
I’m not seeing the way the subjective becomes objective or the mind becomes physical or vice versa. These are just physical processes. “Integrates” could imply physical or mental integration.
So irreducible subjective information is then reduced to the physical, contradicting your reasoning? Or just the physical information? Otherwise, not seeing any M and P conversions.
Physical.
You’re describing the brain as a neural network. In AI, the structure of the information is already encoded in some way, by humans with minds. None of this generates subjective experience, or converts it into physical form. It’s just already existing subjective information moving around.
It seems like you’re saying that irreducible subjective experiences are communicated throughout the physical brain, but give no explanation of how something irreducible and completely subjective like an “intention” becomes physically translated, unless intentions can overlap the physical, and hence M and P have shared structure (M including P, or being its superset). Yet P here is also utilizing subjective information by communicating it across neurons in the brain, meaning P can also include M.
If M exists in P, and P exists in M, they must be reducible to the other, and hence must not be different substances, and subjective and objective are reducible to something more common.
That’s a useful lesson, and I have no doubt about it. But you’re explaining how the physical process of neural communication works and makes us contract our muscles. This doesn’t explain how something supposedly not reducible to P can be reduced to P.
“Intended” is the key.
I know that mental intention can be mapped to the physical, and I do appreciate you explaining your theory. But this involves either M overlapping P, and/or P overlapping M, meaning that they share some general informational structure, and since any information can be measured and compared in the ways I mentioned before (and given that all measurements come down to comparisons and counting of mental information), this implies a more general form of cognition that overlaps M and P.
“general cognition existing”
Everything that is actually true is an “unfalsifiable tautology” if you consider the necessary logical priors.
If something is necessary for something else we already know is true (like subjective percepts needing a medium such as a mind), the necessary structure (the logical priors) must also be true. Therefore, it will form a tautological closed loop (fact with existing structure implying fact which implies the structure which implies the fact). In this case information, and hence information processing is necessary for reality to have any structure or identity at all. We also have immediate evidence of mental processing, so we know a mind is necessary simply from that.
“Oh I see”
Do you not see what I was asking you? I’m asking how seconds or whatnot are actual units OF measurement of emotion like they are for time. Of course seconds are a measurement UNIT.
“No such thing as interactionust dualism”
Sure there is, and it’s been argued for for centuries.
The rock will weigh the same whether we observe it or not.
Yes, neurons are necessary since the brain is because without the brain there is no mind. The physical processes I described are first initiated by intentions. The subjective experiencer – “I”, the self – is needed for this to occur, since that’s what carries out the intention in the first place.
Regarding “irreducible subjective experiences are communicated through the physical brain”, yes they are. The self instantiates the AP by wanting to do something, and the processes that I explained occur, then making action possible. And when it comes to “how the physical process of neural communication works and makes us contract our muscles”, I’m merely describing WHAT and HOW it occurs. I had an A&P professor say years ago that out of the whole textbook he taught out of, muscle movement was some of the only things in the book that we could freely will on our own. Then I thought back to his lessons on APs and muscle movement. That dawned on my last summer, and thinking back to his classes I formulated my theory and framework.
I do see where you’re coming from and I sympathize a bit with your view, but I don’t think that the conclusion of the argument I gave presumes that mental intention is mapped to the physical. When I say X us necessary for Y, it means that Y can’t hold unless X does. If one has a severed spinal cord and is paralyzed from the neck down, if they have an intention to move their arm, they can’t do so because of their severed spinal cord doesn’t send the requisite, necessary signal for APs to trigger the action because they’re physically incapable of doing so.
And when I say that Jensen’s g is ab unfalsifiable tautology. The issue is that Jensen’s revived and redefined Spearman’s g as PC1, which by definition exists making it unfalsifiable.
This is a good discussion and I’m enjoying it. Thanks.
I see. I thought it was obvious that I meant they are units. But degree of an emotion would be a unit as well. It’s just simpler to demonstrate to others and oneself by time, I think.
“No such thing as interactionust dualism”
It’s clearly false. There is no way for two irreducible substances to interact or be compared. That’s what irreducibility implies. Otherwise, I don’t know what a word “irreducible” would mean considering interaction and comparison are a type of reduction to a more common structure (hence we can use words for both)
Well obviously I have no problem with that.
But you haven’t explained why the physical is necessary for the mental if they are dualistically separated. If M is irreducible to P, yet P is necessary for M, obviously there is a contradiction. There’s no way to get M from P unless you can admit that both share structure.
It’s in the question “how does something come from nothing”? Nothing appears to share no structure with something. In fact, nothing is absence of any structure. Yet we can compare the two. So it would seem we were comparing the absence of structure with structure, within a structured framework (or minds, or language). Structurelessness can only be “known” if there is structure. So clearly, structurelessness (nothing) is only recognizable by structure (something).
M and P are both structured, as is subjectivity and objectivity, so clearly they have a more basic shared structure that might be considered, at the very least, the concept of structure itself.
With nothing vs. something, there is no more obvious basic structure because both obviously depend on structure to be compared. But the more basic structure would actually be “potential for structure”, which I think would be the source of reality and free will (at least in terms of “structure”).
If subjectivity can be isolated physically in specific neurons or voltage changes or whatever, it shares structure with the physical. It’s really that simple. Even if its irreducible to those neurons, we have isolated and identified a subjective experience and located it in the brain. Therefore it’s measurable and quantifiable to us.
If subjective experiences are isolated to brains in the physical world, they share a common structure. If it doesn’t mean M is P, it means that P is M, and our perceptions of neurons carrying M is just our M containing P containing M. All of it reduces back to M or whatever is the more fundamental substrate.
It’s more that if P is necessary for M, then if M is not P, M and P are something else.
Alright, I might look into that because I do believe intelligence is more complicated and nuanced than most pyschometricians might believe (or appear to believe).
No problem, I hope someone else is reading it as well, but it is helping me flesh out my ideas either way. Thanks for arguing in good faith.
Eat less and exercise
Eat less and move more… Very astute! That advice is why 95 percent of diets fail. We need better approaches. Of course kcal are king, but it’s very simplistic to say “just eat less and move more”.
95 percent of diets fail because 95 percent of dieters fail. Low-tech solutions are often the best.
They fail because the advice is bad.
rr and ganzir, do you think the trick is to lose weight slowly (in order to not gain it back).
SIDENOTE: In my previous comment it should have been Her being * a woman not her a woman. Peeps.
I think the best way to lose weight is to calorie and macron cycle, where you eat slightly higher kcal than TDEE with high carb, low fat and moderate protein on workout days and lower kcal than TDEE on rest days with high fat, moderate protein and low carb on test days. For example, 2300 kcal on work day and 1200 kcal on rest day and the net kcal for the week will be slightly under 3500 kcal needed to lose one point of fat. This works for many people since it allows them to eat a wide variety of foods based on the day they’re on.
So yea to answer the question, slow weight loss is better and it gives one’s metabolism a chance to adapt to their diet and it gives them a chance to get used to the diet and the feeling of hunger. Combined with intermittent fasting, this is a powerful tool for a lot of people to lose weight, gain muscle and keep off body fat.
It’s very likely that Heidegger had a higher IQ than Oprah, yet he wasn’t very interested in being moral. Also, social skill is probably not strongly correlated to IQ.
I think it was first discovered during the Terman gifted study where kids selected for superior intellect, also turned to be somewhat superior in every way on average (taller, more socially skilled, better character, less likely to lie and cheat) but the difference on these other traits were small.
in France, I don’t think move than 1% knows who is Oprah Winfrey.
That’s why when she came in a Hermes shop 10 minutes before the closing, she was told to come back another time.
Even for a famous person in France, like Madonna or Lady Gaga or the Obamas, the shop sellers would have said the same except if they had be warned in advance and they know they would go a guaranteed bonus.
I knew the Dumas heir who is an adopted Black kid like Afro. They all live in Switzerland to avoid inheritance taxes.
That she was able to leverage a crazy racism accusation, boycott the brand and with this leverage, made them apologize when they weren’t guilty of anything and the family – Dumas and Puech – are billionnaires, shows how vicious and powerful she is.
I love how when she leaves North America people just see her as just another black lady and think they can her treat her dismissively, only to turn on the TV that night & learn the black lady they dismissed just happens to be THE MOST POWERFUL WOMAN ON THE PLANET and have to spend the next ten days living in terror, waiting for the media firestorm to blow over.
She did the same thing in Switzerland & the Swiss government apologized:
She also had a similar incident in Italy:
There was also an incident in the 1980s or easrly 90s where Oprah and her gay black hairdresser where shopping on Madison avenue and they rang the doorbell to enter an exclusive store and they never opened the door. I think there are a lot of stores where people don’t want black customers, either because they think they can’t afford stuff, are afraid they’ll misbehave or think the mere presence of blacks in the store will make it look less exclusive. Or it could have been because she was overweight at times.
If Oprah wanted to help the blacks genuinely, she would donate to Africa. Instead 90% of her donations are to LVMH, Swiss watch makers and Tiffanys.
She built an exclusive boarding school in Africa. If you wanted to help whites you’d stop living off their welfare system and get a job at McDonalds.
Boarding school? LOL you said that with a straight face hahahaha. You know boarding schools are only for the elite blacks dumbass. No peasent or poor person goes to a boarding school in any country.
Nope, only the poorest of the poor are welcome at Oprah’s school
The best way to trigger Puppy, Melo and RR is to criticise beloved blacky. Maybe Bruno gets triggered a bit by it too.
The best way to trigger you is to post articles praising blacks and oprah. This way you will be triggered and post a lot of comments thereby generating clicks and traffic to this site. Look at the comment section…most of the comments are from you about…….blacks!
You know your priorities are straight when you overcompensate and overidentify with the most violent race of man that literally shares no physical or mental characteristics with you.
Puppys moral compass was formed in his teenage years as the son of a hindu man. Basically Puppy disavowed his own mother and father and adopted beloved blacky under jewish influence. Interesting moral maturity from Puppy.
Actually as a man of color, my dad always had empathy for the plight of blacks and was proud to see Oprah making all that money. My older colored cousin always thought Oprah was a con artist but even he gained enormous respect for her when she made the Forbes 400 in 1995. In his day it was unimaginable that a black woman, let alone a dark skinned overweight one, would ever make the Forbes 400, a list so prestigious Trump had to lie his way on to it. For 18 years Oprah was the ONLY black on the entire list. Even Ivy league MBA quadroons couldn’t make the cut.
My white mother was also impressed that someone who had as much going against her as Oprah (from poverty, black, female, abused, illegitimate, no beauty) had the #1 talk show in America.
I also had a white semi-skinhead friend who liked Oprah when she first started but turned on her for being an “oreo” who tries to make people look bad. He claimed I only liked her because she’s a snob.
And yet when I asked him her IQ he guessed 160 saying, “because as much as I hate the woman, she’s on top. She’s been on top since the 1980s and will probably stay on top until whenever she retires.”
Aren’t you half ME/NA or something? (I think you said ME before?) Are ME/NA PoC in Canada? In America they’re white. I should look into Canada’s racial designations soon to see is they’re similar to America’s
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2024/03/01/race-and-racial-identity-in-the-us/
I’m 100% Caucasoid but only 50% European.
Can you tell me what you know about racial categories in Canada? Like what racial groups are used on your government forms or job applications or anything else? Is it similar to OMB race (white, black, Native American, Asian, and Pacific Islander)?
Iirc Canada has people report their ethnic group, not their race per se. So if you were in Canada you’d report yourself as Italian and not white, European or Caucasoid. It’s a better way of doing it because than people are free to aggregate the data later into whatever categories are needed for the research at hand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_origins_of_people_in_Canada
Canada has Jewish as an ethnic category. The census could never get away with that in the U.S.
Though Canada does have black as a category, maybe so escaped slaves from the U.S. had a category. Black immigrants would pick a more specific group
Are you northern Indian? You said your Father empathized with blacks, though. It’s gotta be MENA then.
I’ll write something on race in Canada exclusive for your blog.
I see what you mean about reporting ethnicity instead of race, but the great part about that is each country can do it their own way with their own concepts.
And the US Census defers to the OMB on matters of race, and MENA people are grouped with with whites. Jews (and Irish and Italians) arrived to America as white. In the US, the only ethnic group that’s tallied is whether one identifies as Hispanic or Latino or not Hispanic or Latino. There is a “Some Other Race” box, and the option to put more than one race.
https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/jpps/vol8/iss1/1/
Arab Americans in the US who don’t feel like the term “Arab American” describes them are more likely to put that they’re white, while other Arab Americans with strong ethnic ties and who identify as white.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27645705
So for MENA (which Jews are part of), Directive 15 states they are white.
https://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/help/populations/bridged-race/Directive15.html
In 1977 the OMB grouped Asians and Pacific Islanders as “Asian or Pacific Islander”, and in 1997 it was changed to “Asian” and “Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander.”
https://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/help/populations/bridged-race/directive15.html
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1997-10-30/pdf/97-28653.pdf
I think the current way we have our racial categories works best, but there is a push to combine race and ethnicity together for the question.
I disagree with the framing of Hispanic or Latino and MENA as races, since it doesn’t cohere with STRUCTURE analyses (Hispanics cluster in between the major clusters due to their admixture), but for instance 85 percent of Cubans, 53 percent of Puerto Ricans and 35 percent of Dominicans identified as white, while both Puerto Ricans and Dominicans were more likely to put that they’re black or of more than one race in the 2010 Census. So the OMB is clear that HLS (my phrase, Hispanic, Latino, Spanish) can be used interchangeably, but it doesn’t refer to a homogenous group, just one grouped by language and culture—so it’s a socio-linguistic cultural group comprised of different races and different mixes of races.
https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/c2010br-04-092020.pdf
Notice the way RR is obsessed with a bureacratic definition of race, rather than the common sense one because of low IQ. He thinks the civil servants behind the census in a country define race not for political reasons. But the person on the street, does it for political reasons. Interesting.
Fitness trainer logic.
Non-American with no understanding of how we categorize race logic. OMB racetalk is US racetalk.
Literally 80% of americans don’t even know what the OMB is.
You literally don’t know anything about race in America.
I know more about race than you know about fitness training.
rr says the US federal government determines what race means to americans because evil and retarded.
Seemingly the dumbest commentator in the comment section but actually me and RR know the truth!
“rr says the US federal government determines what race means to americans because evil and retarded.”
“American Indian” means “Native American”, “Asian” means “East Asian”, “Black” means “African”, “White” means “Caucasian”, and “Pacific Islander” means “Oceanian”, so the set of human populations which Spencer refers to as Blumenbacian partitions and the five major races used in the Census align almost perfectly as Risch et al (2002) say, meaning the identity thesis is true and American racetalk is just OMB racetalk. And since radical racial pluralism is true, there are a plurality of race concepts that hold across time and place.
And these categories pick out real kinds in nature, seeing as they correspond to clusters in K=5 which align with the races in US racetalk. Therefore race is a real genuine kind, and it’s also a social construct. So we can then rightly say that race is a social construct of a biological reality.
south asians are misclassified. no one uses white to mean caucasoid except tamil dalits. abos have no classification.
social construct of a biological reality = contradiction
rr: according to the government this man is chinese and therefore he is chinese and americans agree.
a real genuine kind, and it’s also a social construct = contradiction
a social construct of a biological reality = contradiction
That’s not a contradiction and OMB classifies Asians in a specific way. What I said is what Spencer argues in his identity thesis. Abos are Pacific Islanders (Oceanians).
Spencer addressed that criticism—which he calls “the South Asian mismatch objection—at length in his response to Haslanger, Glasgow, and Jeffers. So what the term Asian means in OMB racetalk (Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, Pakistanis, Indians) is different from the people that are called East Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, Koreans). Since South Asians in America are about 27 percent East Asian then there is no contradiction in classifying South Asians with Asians.
Rosenberg et al found that the Kalash were 99 percent Caucasian, so there are numerous Kalash that are unmixed which the OMB would classify as Asian while Spencer’s OMB race theory would classify them as Caucasian. So now the question is how can the OMB be wrong in classifying unmixed South Asians with Asian? It’s simple: When we fix referents of terms in English, then we are bound to get some of them wrong.
The OMB wanted to match it’s classification schema to be similar but not identical to Blumenbachs races—this was outright said by the former director of the Census Bureau. It wanted to make it so that race is based on ancestry and not phenotype. So what the OMB intended to pick out with their classification scheme was the set of human continental populations—which are proper names for population groups.
The way we categorize and understand race is shaped by social, cultural and historical factors and it influences how we perceive and categorize people based on physical traits (social construct) while there is real genetic diversity that exists within and among human continental populations (biological reality).
Since South Asians in America are about 27 percent East Asian
I’m surprised it’s that high, unless a lot of South Asian Americans come from the Northeast region of India
Here’s the reference – see table 3. This is for American South Asians.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3951706/
It also says “assuming 3 ancestral groups” so I suspect the Australoid admixture in the South Asian people is being counted as Asian.
Also strange how they have Native Americans as 67% European. I suspect a lot of that European ancestry is from before Native Americans even entered the Americas so a bit misleading.
Yea that’s valid. Also Native Hawaiians are 56 percent Oceanian, 30 percent East Asian, and 14 percent Caucasian. See page 4.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0047881&type=printable
Spencer also states that using the Jaccard coefficient, the overlap between Native American and American Indian is 1.0. And I’d say that some of that 67 percent European is derived from Ancient West Eurasians.
Yeah, which is why Masaman only recognize 4 of the 5 races Blumenbach described. Native Americans are an ancient mix of Caucasoid & Mongoloid.
I disagree since they’re phenotypically distinct, OMB designates them as races, and structure analyses pick them out as well. But that’s why there is a “European component.” The OMB specifically set out to almost mirror Blumenbachs races
it IS a contradiction. you don’t even know what social construct means. sad.
rr: gravity is a social construction of a physical reality.
sad.
if true then abos are misclassified.
polynesians are not their own race. they are closest to SE asians. they’re just really big. thus the polynesians of sumo have similar faces to the mongolians but darker.
amerindians are not a mix of chinese and caucasoid they’re just chinese.
northern chinapipo are closer to europeans than they are to south chinese and SE asians.
rr is confused and dishonest.
pure blooded amerindians look chinese.
there are exceptions, but they are few.
from alaska to mexico to bolivia they look chinese.
the exceptions are just like the exceptions among chinapipo themselves. some chinapipo look european.
especially some japanese.
Arctic people look Chinese. Native Americans not so much:
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4e6c78ab6848a6877079ac3ec5f4958c-lq
debunk the following i have to keep posting it.
cavelli-sforza was a northern italian aristocrat sadly.
David Reich claims Sforza turned out to be completely wrong
Abos aren’t misclassified. Polynesians are PIs (Oceanians). Native Americans are their own race (that they have AWE/ANE ancestry doesn’t make them not their own race). Chinese are Asians. All Natives in the Americas fall under the same racial designation.
RR you’re declaring them their own race because you’ve decided (based on nothing) that K = 5 is the correct number of races. If you used K = 6 the Kalash would be their own race.
“based on nothing”
It corresponds to the OMB’s classification scheme. The clusters in K=5 are genetically structured. That the Kalash appear in K=6 doesn’t undercut the OMB race argument, since the conditions for racehood don’t hold for them. Structure shows genetic structure to the clusters, and these clusters are to be identified as races—cluster realism is true.
It corresponds to the OMB’s classification scheme.
So because you found one social classification out of many (OMB) that sort-of matches one scientific classification out of many (K = 5 in STRUCTURE) you assume this is the correct scheme. No other taxonomic scheme is arrived at this way. We don’t decide how many species of homo there are because K = the some government’s classification scheme.
That the Kalash appear in K=6 doesn’t undercut the OMB race argument, since the conditions for racehood don’t hold for them.
What conditions for racehood?
There isn’t a single correct answer to the question of the reality of race and what it is in a relevant context—radical pluralism about race is true so there are (could be) numerous relevant theories and definitions of race (both in America and throughout the world), what it means and if it’s real (like Hardimon’s socialrace concept, in which he argues that social constructivists should take to his minimalist concept of race https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/sjp.12478).
And Hardimon’s (2017:31) conditions. Kalash are Caucasian.
“(C1) … a group is distinguished from other groups of human beings by patterns of visible physical features
(C2) [the] members are linked by a common ancestry peculiar to members of that group, and
(C3) [they] originate from a distinctive geographic location
[…]
…what it is for a group to be a race is not defined in terms of what it is for an individual to be a member of a race. What it means to be an individual member of a minimalist race is defined in terms of what it is for a group to be a race.”
abos ARE! misclassified.
rr: but if i just contradict a true statement then i win.
How are they misclassified?
David Reich claims Sforza turned out to be completely wrong
Why would I make it up? I LOVE the Sforza tree but Reich is constantly saying stuff like:
Cavalli-Sforza made a grand bet in 1960 that would drive his entire career. He bet that it would be possible to reconstruct the great migrations of the past based entirely on the genetic differences among present-day peoples.
Cavalli- Sforza saw before anyone else the full potential of genetics for revealing the human past, but his vision predated the technology needed to fulfill it. Today, however, things are very different. We have several hundred thousand times more data, and in addition we have access to the rich lode of information contained in ancient DNA, which has become a more definitive source of information about past population movements than the traditional tools of archaeology and linguistics.
The resolution with which this revolution has allowed us to reconstruct events in the human past is stunning.
peepee: einstein proved newton was completely wrong therefore gravity doesn’t exist.
this is peepee logic. sad.
rr: peepee identifies as 100% aryan therefore she is not a black lesbian.
Arctic people look Chinese. Native Americans not so much:
wow! peepee just admitted she’s blind. sad.
what a fucking retard!
this comment will be posted or its non-posting will prove that peepee has a very low IQ.
also peepee just admitted she doesn’t live in canada.
sad.
peepee: you’re wrong because source. have you ever seen a pure blooded mexican?
well of course i have peepee. and IN PERSON, because i live in the western hemisphere UNLIKE you.
what a fucking retard!
and what if you’re a spanish american like carlos estevez (charlie sheen), jerry garcia, or keith hernandez?
are antonio banderas and javier bardem US citizens?
are they classified as hispanic or as white?
obviously abos don’t need to be categorized because there are so few of them in the US. but i’d like to see rr’s source for classifying patty mills as a pacific islander.
peepee wants to classify him with oprah. but despite his appearance he’s very not black african.
Unmixed Abos (Abos without European admixture) are PIs.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917718/
“and what if you’re a spanish american like carlos estevez (charlie sheen), jerry garcia, or keith hernandez?”
If you mean Spaniard, they’re technically “Hispanic”, since the term refers to Spanish speakers. Hispanics/Latinos aren’t separate races, one can be white or black or Asian and be Hispanic or Latino.
Notice the way RR dodged the question on latinos vs spanish by dragging out the OMB regulation. He can’t actually think for himself. Lack of VIQ.
What are you smoking? “Latinos” aren’t a racial group, they don’t cluster separately. They can be of any race.
who is counted as “white” is more than just a stupid semantics argument.
to put it in steve sailer’s terms: jews and MENAs have diversity/political pokemon points europeans do not have. but especially jews. islamophobia and antisemitism are things. anti-european-ism is not a thing as far as american mass media is concerned, even though it is obviously a thing.
but obviously there are some MENAs who look european and some europeans who don’t look european. turks, syrians, lebanese, afghans in particular often look european.
That doesn’t mean they’re not white.
rr: jews can’t be anti-white because they’re white.
^^^INFURIATING^^^
What are you smoking? “Latinos” aren’t a racial group, they don’t cluster separately. They can be of any race.
C. SAD!
“Hispanics” are an ethnic group and can be of any race.
RR I’m going to introduce you to a very advanced concept that autistic people and people of non genius VIQ struggle with and thats when a concept or word has more then 1 meaning that is ‘seemingly’ contradictory. ‘Latino’ is one of these concepts.
Maybe Marsha is right and you aren’t playing dumb, and really are just as dumb as your SAT score.
[redacted by pp because I need him to keep believing that, March 8, 2024] you idiot. Where’s the error in the claim “‘Hispanics’ are an ethnic group—a socio-linguistic cultural group—and not a race. Go ahead and explain.
This guy agrees Hispanics are not one of the three races:
Of course they’re not a race, they cluster separately in cluster analyses for one. For two, it’s a socio-linguistic cultural group. For three, I’m not an anti-realist about race (of course), but I am an anti-realist about the hereditarian “conception” of race.
The OMB is making it “race or ethnicity” when it comes to checking the boxes for the 2030 Census and MENA is a separate category. I disagree with that, as I wrote here, since most MENA identify as white (Jews included). Though I don’t discount that one could create a race concept where Hispanics are a race, in that if certain conditions hold for Hispanics that hold for other racial groups then they could be a race (just the same with Jews/MENA people). But in America there are 5 races.
Liberal whites have done more for blacks than all the other races combined, including blacks themselves who sold their own people into slavery.
Oprah’s done more for blacks than any other living black. She put a black man in the White house, brought black art to the screen, put over 500 black men through Morehouse, built entire schools for black Africans, built entire neighborhoods for blacks after Katrina, sold more books for Toni Morrison than the Nobel Prize did, gave us Gayle King & Iyanla, and served as a positive black image for 38 years, paving the way for dozens of blacks in media.
And Gus Fring sponsored anti-drug events
Puppy will ban the comment where I said blacks sold themselves into slavery and claim I’m ‘racist’ which isn’t even a logical argument. Its an emotional one.
The fact that you think they were sold into slavery means you agree with the liberals that black had real power and agency and were not simply captured like animals. You’ve basically already said you don’t believe in superior races. You agree more with Gould than you do with Rushton.
Does anyone deny that Africans sold other Africans to whites? There are some arguments that certain African countries owe reparations, that the US owes African country reparations, and of course that the US owes black slave descendants (and those who went through Jim Crow and segregation) reparations.
But I’m not aware of anyone denying that Africans sold others into slavery. Some were captured, some were bought. (I’m unsure of any estimates. I’ll report back soon.)
When I first learned as a kid blacks were slaves, I was horrified. How could one race be so superior than they enslaved another? I was deeply disturbed and it’s one of the main reasons I turned to HBD for answers.
So when I hear people say they were sold into slavery by other blacks, it undermines the HBD narrative of whites being this superior race that just conquered and dominated blacks. Instead it paints the races as equals engaged in a business transaction.
???? Are you stupid. Selling your own people into slavery just to keep food on the table is the ultimate sign of degeneracy and moral depravity. I have never heard of an asian or an arab sell their own kind to people of other races.
They didn’t see them as their own people dumbass. Have you any idea how many languages, tribes, phenotypes and cultures were in sub-Saharan Africa? It would be like if I sold a bunch of snakes to an alien & them saying “those Earthlings are so depraved, selling other Earthlings into slavery”
Puppy and RR are equally religious about blacks. Puppy also lacks the verbal IQ to identify what ‘religious’ means. He thinks its when you officially become baptised or someone sprays you with incense….
or someone sprays you with incense….
Or in your case incest.
Am I banned now?
<i>Although the average (self-made) billionaire has a very superior IQ of 130, some cut ethical corners and don’t fully appreciate abstract moral concepts like “conflict of interest”.</i>
Oh bull fucking shit. When you have a tenth as much money as Oprah does, additional income has lost its marginal utility long ago. Nobody can be ethical and have that much money. If they were ethical, they would have given it all away.
You don’t understand that money is a tool. So if you have like a business like jeff bezos, he does the management because who will use the money in the correct way without him. It is stupid to say he can use all the money at the same time, he does not buy more than 6 cheeseburgers a day to eat. But he does not want money to be wasted. Dipshits wates money so utility is done by management of the money. He makes sure all the people under him do the work but the money is distributed under a huge management system not a single bank account. Economically they make jobs for more people than giving it to the stupid wasteful government. If they gave the money away thousands of highly efficient management jobs would disappear.
LOL Anime is a libertarian HAHAHAHAHA. Its autist bingo with this guy.
I think the reason people accumulate wealth is 2 prepare 4 the unpredictable. Whether it’s good or bad if something huge happens 2 the planet it’s best 2 be prepared 4 it!
only stupid rich people spend their money on stupid things because of lack of future orientation or a need 2 impress others.
whereas intelligent rich people plan 4 future things like a breakthrough in space travel or life expectancy being increased because they know the market will only cater 2 those with money.
or if something really bad happened they’d want money 2 suffice their lifestyle.
If you’re very positively ethical with over, let’s say, ten million dollars of net worth (and you keep it or build on it for years), you’re only ethical by accident. You’re dealing with too much capital for most human beings to reasonably utilize without making some bad decisions, and you are a target for too many predators and leeches to not be constantly guarding it and hence be very Machiavellian yourself.
People like Zuckerberg or Jobs wore the same stuff and live certain predictable ways (well, Jobs was apparently more like a high acheiving moody asshole, but let’s talk about Zuck) because they need to dedicate all of their cognition and energy to their businesses. Even then, there are constant ethical concerns with the tech.
In the end, what they accomplished was creating technology/tools that changed the world and definitely made certain things more efficient, but at the expense of what? We don’t really know yet, partially because we don’t know of all information behind-the-scenes that world governments possess thanks to these companies.
The NSA has a backdoor into all the american tech cos. They are forced to let the NSA into all their data. With that info you could blackmail anyone.
pill is so stupid
everyone know that authorization is required.
systems don’t just send all data to them
99% of computer people understand that they need keep traps at their back doors.
pill is computer illiterate.
Anime is not only autistic but dumb. This is well known even in the mainstream media. Apple complained about having to give access to the NSA publicly. But they are forced to.
pill is not a hacker – he is a retard
all computer literate people know how to protect themselves unlike pill
You know less about computers than I do. I’m not even bragging, its a topic I have no interest in, but I know more than autistic janitor.
Pill won’t know what these are are where they came from:
Turing Machine
Von Neumann Architecture
Lisp
Kenral
Algorithm
Data Structure
Transistor
DOS
Linux
Hash Table
One Time Pad
File System
extenetion (.exe)
Fire Wall
Binary
Server Authentication
Reboot
Root Server
HTML
Defragment
and more…
–
pill won’t even know what an IP address is
I agree you know much more about computers than pill.
If he knew about computers then why doesn’t he know about the NSA backdoor into the tech cos??? Idiot.
Because that requires knowledge of government my little dumb-dumb.
Lisp means « lots of stupid and insipid parenthesis » as I remember it. I remember Scheme and Smalltalk. And Unix Sun Microsystems as the platform. I don’t know if younger crowd still use this things.
i hear Python is a thing. I remember it was already used by IT guys in jobs for derivatives trading platforms. They were paid a lot in London and NY. I knew a guy who got recruited a long time ago by Hagan Ricci group executive search firm for a Connecticut based High frequency trading firm with a 1 M total salary wich is crazy for computing. But he was number 3 at ENS Ulm math exam, so not a fool …
i really didn’t like programming even if I was not bad at it.
Writing program in a room with no windows or with an ugly view is my definition of hell as a job for a highly qualified graduate.
Bruno you speak english like its a programming language. Autists have natural affinity with coding. You could say autists think in coding.
No Puppy, any competent IT person knows about the vulnerability of the major tech cos to the NSA. Thats not government knowledge. Its called knowing about end to end encryption. Google it.
pill does not understand that after snowden many people in IT were pissed about what was happening.
why?
because they don’t want gov spying of them either stupid pill. they lose credibility.
so you know what happened right?
They increased security on all fronts.
university videos exist of this pill, look it up.
back doors only work if they are authorized.
because zero days only work once the gov only uses them in emergencies otherwise the gov could hack anyone outside or inside the USA.
pill cannot comprehend why the IT people would want security from gov spying on them, low social iq on his part.
pill never heard of a three man stand.
If RR sat a Biology 101 exam he would literally fail lol.
This kind of severe cognitive distortion just to say blacks are the exact same as whites GODDDAMITT!!!
I think everyone in the comment section can agree Israel has a fascist government at the moment. Anyone see the video of the jews shooting into the crowd near the aid truck. Wow.
If any other country in the world did that, they would be sanctioned by the UN.
Ponzi scheme that tapped Harvard Business School network shut down (ft.com)
Very likely a high IQ gypsy.
ponzi not a jew. allen stanford not a jew. lay, skilling not. fastow was. ebbers not, sullivan not. kozlowski not. winnick was. stephen cohen was.
are jews more likely to engage in financial crimes given that they are over-represented among those with the opportunity to commit such crimes?
in the 80s i think every one convicted of insider trading was a jew. stephen cohen and winnick never went to prison. maybe they’ve learned to cheat in a way they don’t get caught? or maybe they control the courts.
Converting the abstract 2 reality is intelligence in my opinion. Doing the opposite is imagination.
intelligence can certainly be quantified since we think in symbols and some people can use better and more effective symbols 2 enunciate the solution 2 a problem.
it’s hard 2 describe what goes on in a persons head but doing so is intelligence.
We think in symbols so this makes sense 2 me.
In the non autistic community, we think in instinct. We believe in morals.
there’s a spectrum because some think morally while others are completely devoid of it.
but at the end of the day the main instinct that is a tell tale sign is thinking in interconnected terms meaning we value things around us vs thinking individually.
thinking individually leads 2 behaviors that are symbolically related 2 the individual while thinking interconnected is symbolic 2 the group.
How’s this campaign going to convince everyone I have autism? The most socially intelligent and acerbic commentator is a robot. You think even Anime will buy this?
Dude your own psychologists bought it. They sat and interviewed you for an hour each and both independently concluded you were autistic. It doesn’t get anymore definitive than that. Your writing style sounds like chat GPT was asked to write in a socially intelligent acerbic style; it just doesn’t land. Readers found your comedy act at Lion’s blog so painfully unfunny that he begged you to stop.
pill is a sigma male
i’m just a beta
You can’t say you’re socially intelligent if you think [redacted by pp because I may need him to keep thinking that, 2024-03-02], Anime is a libertarian, or not even shower regularly.
You’re autistic. This is now an established fact.
Anime is like a cartoon autism character.
peeps not everything is iq alone. Oprah’s big brain I think gave her the idea to appear as ethical even if she isn’t ( I am not saying she isn’t ethical by heart just because she has a big brain…she could genuinely be an ethical person by heart or by limbic system to those people who believe ethics arise in the brain). It is just that her big brain gives her (a person of her popularity and status and the image she has created for herself) the intellect to realize the critical need to appear ethical at all times.
Also her a woman makes this need of her stronger ( my hypotheses)
New 40 yard dash record – 4.21 seconds.
I wonder if 4.20 is equivalent to 150+ IQ
Who cares? I care about the limits of human potential when it comes to athletics. We’re almost there when it comes to 40y dash.
do you believe cognition or athleticism is more plastic in earlier years or beyond?
I think intelligence is more plastic and thus less innate than athletics!
Oprah is evil; not ethical.
Well well well seems like drift and gene flow is what’s been driving genome-wide evolutionary change the past 5000 years.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2312377121?doi=10.1073%2Fpnas.2312377121
I wish it were true I prefer racial IQ differences all evolved before agriculture. It’s Cochran types who you’ll get a rise out of.
K = 5 should be:
caucasoid
SE asian
abos
capoids
oprahsuperfans
If paleoanthropology were uncorrupted by wokeness, humanity would be divided into 2 sub-species: blacks (including capoids & Australoids) & non-blacks.
The non-black sub-species would then be divided into 2 races: Mongoloids & Caucasoids
The mongoloids would then by divided into 2 sub-races: yellows (East Asians) and reds (Native Americans) and Caucasoids would be divided into 3 sub-races: whites (Euorpeans), browns (MENA & South Asians) & purples (Ashkenazi Jews)
Human races aren’t subspecies though. And Ashkenazi Jews are white, as are MENAs.
I would think most Native Americans that were not mixed with Europeans to look kind of like East Asians but less neotenized… which seems to be largely how they look(ed). Of course they would have bigger noses and more prominent foreheads due to that.
I prefer homo neanderthal to homo erectus for what it’s worth!
“And Ashkenazi Jews are white, as are MENAs.”
This is the lowest IQ statement I’ve ever read in the comment section. Literally RR is saying black is white.
TP doesn’t know anything about American racetalk.
Pill and RR are both retarded in every way! They don’t even stay on topic like the autistic losers they are!
He was mentored by the population geneticist Luca Cavalli-Sforza
so completely wrong about what peepee?
the above tree cannot be wrong. it’s just an observation.
peepee: your observation contradicts my theory therefore your observation is completely wrong.
sad.
how genetic distance is defined is not an observation obviously.
so maybe reich claimed sflorza’s definition was inferior to his.
i don’t know who made this but here you can see the difference. capoids are claimed to be as close to bantus as italians are to south italians. hahaha.
Australoids are not an outgroup to East Asians and Europeans. Stop posting these dumb outdated results, basic bitch Fst has its shortcomings which produces these inaccuracies, more advanced methods like f3 and dstats offer better results. Australoids and East Asians make a clade which excludes Europeans. Chinese are phylogenetically closer to an Australian Aboriginal than to Germans for example.
And where do Southeast Asians fit in your tree?
Primarily descended from a southern group of East Asians who in their neolithic phase migrated southward and obtained some amount of local southeast Asian Australoid ancestry. Bear in mind that both Australoids and East Asians are in the East Eurasian clade. Also, the southern group of East Asians were possibly already a bit different from the northern group of East Asians in the neolithic because they didn’t split long before that (maybe only 20,000 years ago). Both East Asians didn’t live too far north or too far south. northern East Asians, southern East Asians who went southwards, modern Southeast Asians and Australoids are all East Eurasians. Interestingly, Amerindians are not East Eurasians.
Why? Because there is a deeper (26,000-ish year old?) split of an East Asian-like people who split before the northern and southern ones did, these earlier splitters mixed with ANS to later form Amerindians in a ratio of 40:60 ANS:Early East Asian ancestry. ANS inhabited the far north and were 70% West Eurasian + 30% East Eurasian.
Can you draw a tree that includes Southeast Asians, Northeast Asians, Native Americans, Arctic people, Europeans, Middle Easterners, South Asians, Australoids, West Africans, East Africans, pygmies & Bushmen?
Australoids are an out group to East Asians. Unmixed Abos are Pacific Islanders. This is an accomplishment of Spencer’s identity thesis. K=5 has a PI cluster because they’re a racial group.
@RR
Australoids are an outgroup to East Asians, but not an outgroup to a clade of East Asians + Europeans. That stuff is outdated pre-2010 dogshit which somehow hasn’t died.
@PP
Not up for drawing right now but: Bushmen are an outgroup to everyone else. West Africans are an outgroup to Eurasians. Basal Eurasians are an outgroup to crown Eurasians, Crown Eurasians form the clade of West Eurasian and East Eurasian. Middle Easterners are West Eurasians with a high amount of Basal Eurasian ancestry, Europeans are West Eurasians with a lower amount of Basal Eurasian ancestry. East Eurasians are split into East Asian, South Asian and Australoids, latter 2 may or may not make a closer clade with each other than to East Asians. Modern South Asians are East Eurasian + West Eurasian + Basal Eurasian. Northeast Asians are pure East Asians except for Japanese who have >7% admixture from an Australoid-like source (Jomon were half Australoid-like and Japanese are around 15% Jomon). Southeast Asians are mostly East Asian + some local Australoid-like admixture. So Japanese and Southeast Asians are mixed East Eurasians, not pure East Asians. Native Americans are East Asian + ANS/ANE. The ANS/ANE component is 70% West Eurasian + 30% East Eurasian. Arctic people are like Native Americans with less ANS/ANE ancestry.
And this isn’t even going into the different types of West Eurasians: like the pre-LGM Goyet vs Sunghir types and the post-LGM EHG vs WHG types; the nature of the latter two’s relationship to the former two is still unknown. Not to mention mixed West Eurasians like CHG, Iran Neolithic, Natufians, Anatolians .etc.
What about pygmies & East Africans?
“Australoids are an outgroup to East Asians, but not an outgroup to a clade of East Asians + Europeans. That stuff is outdated pre-2010 dogshit which somehow hasn’t died.”
Yea I can see that. But it’s clear that Asians and PIs are different races.
@PP
Pygmies are probably also outgroups to West Africans and Eurasians but maybe not as far as Bushmen. East Africans are admixture of Eastern Sub-Saharans with Southwest Asians. Eastern Sub-Saharans were probably as far from Eurasians as West Africans are but they were also differentiated from West Africans. Southwest Asians in question on the other hand were either Natufians or Neolithic to Copper age Levantines- West Eurasians with plenty of Basal Eurasian ancestry.
@RR
You can demarcate them as different races if you want because that is a little arbitrary. One could say there are thousands of races around today, or could take a lower resolution and say there are only two races: Tropical Saharans and Afrasians. This is about to go into a more speculative territory so things are unclear, but there is a hypothesis put forth by blogger Dienekes who considers modern day West Africans to be a mix of something more divergent (tropical Africans) and a population closer to Eurasians and this may or may not be true. Looking at the Taforalt affinity in West Africans: I know wikipedia says Taforalt has sub saharan ancestry but it could also be the other way around if one doesn’t assume Natufians as an ancestral source and instead as a descendant population from something related to Taforalt instead. There are reasons to think the Natufian + SSA model is faulty because Natufians themselves are probably the result of a North African + Kebaran admixture. The African affinity in Taforalt can be interpreted as the ghost population known as Ancient North Africans who might make a clade with Eurasians and Basal Eurasians to the exclusion of Africans (because the latter are more divergent). This ANA could be partly ancestral to Taforalt. But as I said, things are unclear and we don’t know if this ANA is real, let alone if it truly clades with Eurasians to the exclusion of Tropical Africans.
So the bottom line is Rushton was right. The three main taxa seem to differ in antiquity. The Negroid races (starting with bushmen & pygmies) were the first to branch off. The Caucasoids emerged second. And the Mongoloids were the last to split off.
A picture is worth a thousand words:
But it’s clear that Asians and PIs are different races.
the exact opposite of the truth.
so now we know that when one does provide a source rr will just contradict it and provide no source of his own. what a clown.
Australoids are an out group to East Asians.
is rr literally blind? is that his deal? explains so much.
rr: but the gubment said.
Chinese are phylogenetically closer to an Australian Aboriginal than to Germans for example.
^^^CLOWN PEEPEE SOCKPUPPET^^^
Flamin,
K=2 doesn’t give human population divisions; K=5 is genetically demarcates.
PP,
Rushton was missing PIs and Native Americans—PIs aren’t African and Native Americans aren’t Asian.
Mugabe,
K=5 demarcates PIs from Asians.
Rushton was missing PIs and Native Americans—PIs aren’t African and Native Americans aren’t Asian.
Based on cladistics, PIs and Native Americans are part of the Mongoloid clad. See the tree I posted. Based on skull morphology (how paleontologists define taxa), Native Americans are Caucasoid and Oceanians range from Mongoloid to Negroid.
OK PP how about this. I’ll write and send you something on why Rushton’s tri-archic race theory fails, you can respond after my argument, post it on your blog and we can continue discussion in the comments.
Can you give me references for that claim? What do you think about Spencer’s OMB race theory and how it captures what race means in America?
@PP
East and West Eurasians are a split. So one doesn’t branch off earlier than another. They branch off at the same time. However modern Europeans and West Asians have Basal Eurasian DNA so you could say that the Basal makes them look split off if you ignore the distinctions between ancestral inputs. However it is important to note that East Asians have divergent crown Eurasian ancestry outside of the East-West Eurasian split, so one similarly chooses to ignore the distinctions between ancestral inputs, could say that East Asians split off ‘before’ cro magnons and WHG groups did who lack the divergent ancestry and also completely lack basal Eurasians. Going by this logic, modern Europeans branched off before East Asians, but European hunter gatherers branched off after East Asians; I find the logic faulty but this is the result.
@mugabe
Don’t believe me? No problem.
Distance to:Han_Shanghai
0.58269043 Australian
0.61248594 German
This is in spite of how inbred Australians are which makes them more distant to everyone in the model than they actually are in reality.
East and West Eurasians are a split. So one doesn’t branch off earlier than another. They branch off at the same time.
But West Eurasians = Caucasoids
East Eurasians = Mongoloids + Australoids
So, Caucasoids split from East Eurasians, and then Mongoloids and Australoids split, so Mongoloids & Australoids split off last.
Of course Australoids are the most primitive of the non-Africans, reminding us that splitting off dates are only a crude proxy for evolutionary change.
We know that Aboriginals and New Guineans share a common origin from indigenous Sahul inhabitants, see McEvoy et al (2010). We know that the indigenous people of Oceania interbred to create modern Oceanians (which are a race in American OMB racetalk).
peepee’s chart says the EXACT SAME THING my chart says but because low IQ satanist [n word redacted by pp, 2024-03-07] she can’t see it.
sad.
My chart differs from your in that:
1) yours shows all sub-Saharans as a single clad (race) while mine shows most of them in a single clad, but a few in their own clad.
2) yours shows Australoids branching off before the Caucasoid-Mongoloid split. Mine shows them branching off after.
Your chart makes more sense but mine is based on more up to date genetic (and linguistic) data.
We know that the indigenous people of Oceania…
which are a race because the gubment!
luh
hoo
zer
reminding us that…
this disproves flushton’s and peepee’s theory!
peepee just admittted her theory is FALSE!
then said: but because crude n shit it’s still true.
luh
hoo
zer!
@PP
>So, Caucasoids split from East Eurasians, and then Mongoloids and Australoids split, so Mongoloids & Australoids split off last.
This is inaccurate because it does not account for the IUP (pre-West and East Eurasian split) ancestry in East Eurasians.
Also, the split between the ancestors of Australoids and the ancestors of Mongoloids happened soon after the East-West Eurasian split so its not a big jump. Furthermore, early East Asians were not Mongoloids. Modern East Asian-like DNA emerges around 19,000 years ago, and thought it had descendants which differentiated it a bit before coming back together again after that point, the differentiation post-19000 years ago prior to re-mixing in the neolithic was not large. In contrast, Europeans and West Asians formed 5000 to 10000 years ago, which makes them younger. But a part of the mixture involved the movement of the Basal Eurasian component which is divergent (split earlier). Still, if you only want to look at splits, you must consider that East Asians aren’t merely East Eurasian, but East Eurasian + IUP. IUP is divergent, but not as much as Basal Eurasians. IUP split BEFORE East and West Eurasians did, so East Asians harbor an ancestry from before the split. Meanwhile, European hunters known as the Western Hunter Gatherers, unlike modern Europeans, did not have that kind of ancestry and also lacked the divergent basal Eurasian that modern Europeans have. So if you want to look at divergent admixture, modern Europeans would be more divergent among Europeans than European hunters, but modern Europeans are also younger and subjected to the more modern selection pressures than the European hunters were.
See, branching is not a useful form of hierarchy. It is useful for phylogeny. Heck, lets make it more complicated- what if the Basals which admixed into Europeans and West Asians themselves were heavily branched from extinct older Basal Eurasians?
>This is inaccurate because it does not account for the IUP (pre-West and East Eurasian split) ancestry in East Eurasians.
What percentage of East Asian ancestry is IUP?
Also, the split between the ancestors of Australoids and the ancestors of Mongoloids happened soon after the East-West Eurasian split so its not a big jump.
Well my theory is splits correlate with evolutionary change because they involve an event big enough to divide a population, so they are big deals regardless of how spread apart in time they are.
K=5 demarcates PIs from Asians.
FALSE!
unless by asians you mean NE asians and native americans AND exclude abos from PIs.
but duh gubment includes SE asians and south asians and excludes native americans.
Mugabe, source is here.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917718/
“K=5 demarcates PIs from Asians.
FALSE!”
What are you smoking? Read Rosenberg et al 2002 and then read Hardimon’s defense of it in Rethinking Race and then Spencer’s defense in A Radical Solution to the Race Problem.
TBH those k and admixture type things are ancient methods at this point as well. Today there are advanced methods like f3, f4/dstats, qpadm and global25.
Structure identifies clusters of individuals with similar genetic profiles and the clusters represent genetic ancestry which can be used to delineate distinct population groups based on genetic similarity so it provides a visual representation (clusters) of population structure which allows the identification of genetic boundaries between groups (of the 4.3 percent of human variation that’s among Spencer’s human continental populations races). What you mentioned are statistical tests which give insight into admixture and population history but don’t delineate population groups. So they can identify admixture, shared genetic drift and allele frequency correlations between groups but they don’t provide a visual representation of population structure in the same way that structure analyses do.
I aappreciate your comments and I can tell you’re knowledgeable on the matter, but they’re answering different questions.
Visual representation of population structure is provided by PCA methods and global25 is a PCA method tool where they look at variation and represent it as principal components. Older methods used to generate random but consistent clusters, newer methods can use ancient individuals as the K-clusters themselves and represent modern individuals on the ancient genetic variation. The limitation here is the extent of ancient individuals used, anything outside of their variation will not give real results in the newer methods like global25.
Admixture, drift and allele correlations are more so the fst, f3 and dstats domain. The basic idea here is to see if given an outgroup, the relevant populations are more related to each other than to some reference.
These can give differing aspects of an answer. Like: was Tianyuan man more like modern Australoids or modern East Asians? PCA methods would put him closer to modern Australoids and coastal Negritos because the bottleneck that created modern East Asians was insane and gave them a huge drift away from their very own ancestors. On the other hand, allele sharing methods like f3 would indicate that Tianyuan has more to do with modern East Asians than with modern Australoids.
peepee is right of course. it is possible to tell the difference between amerindians and chinapipo usually. aleuts are the hardest to tell the difference.
what i meant of course was amerindians look chinese just like southern italians look irish.
their genetic closeness is obvious.
For practical purposes and avoiding getting into word games with the black supremacist RR, native americans and east asians are two distinct races. They share zero physical and intellectual characteristics aside from slanty eyes.
we’ll just have to disagree.
so northern chinapipo and europeans are the world-beaters today and they are closely related genetically.
peepee: but chinapipo are genetically superior n shit.
even if this were the case it may not be the case much longer. europeans industrialized first. supposedly industrialization is dysgenic. northern chinapipo have the lowest birth rates in the world. so who’s having the chirren? it could be the dumbest chinapipo.
according to lion and me and contra mike judge fertility among american wypipo is pretty even vs IQ or was. religiosity, independent of IQ, is another predictor.
iceland has a very high tfr for europe or did.
MOTHER AFRICA CLEANSE ME FOR MY SINS – RR (nightly ritual).
some jews look like mulattoes. no european looks like that. except maybe southern italians sadly.
I wonder if certain disorders like Asperger’s, ADHD and bipolar correlate with above average IQs in some way?
Aspergers yes, the other two no.
RR said someone from sudan is european. LOL.
No I didn’t.
Puppy just reflexively takes anime and brunos side on every issue. If you say the sky is blue, and the person who is blind says its yellow – even if they don’t understand what the hell a colour is – people will agree with the blind person just to spite me.
pill cannot tell who is blind and who is not blind.
he simply thinks he is right about everything so no matter what you say he will call you blind, what a bigoted fag pill is.
the people on this blog only pay attention 2 intellect when hard work exists as well!
people don’t realize that hard work in the form of conscientiousness is as important 2 success in this world as intellect is especially when in regards 2 building wealth.
mindset vs skillset
ALIEN HEAD!
better!
RR: Teens, Youths, and upcoming Scholars with their whole lives ahead of themselves are Africans in American Racetalk. You just don’t unuhstan American Racetalk and the OMB.
so here’s the claim. obviously pool is an autistic sociopath who has learned that by exaggerating how bad andre the giant is, he can get views (and thus money) from hulk hogan fans.
he totally fell down and made a fool of himself after ye left.
you saw there how the world works in americastan.
how it really works.
sad.
Around 12 years ago, the most intelligent and wise cinema critic Richard Brody started – in my opinion – to give weird positive opinions about inferior movies.
it’s only when I was introduced to HBD through Lion, Sailer, Jayman and then your blog, that I realized he was being in my eyes dysfunctional each time a movie had a blacks as main characters. Then, 3 or 4 years ago, he started to be biased against movies where only non minority whites are the main characters.
i don’t think it’s a conscious strategy, even if Brody is obviously a Jew, but it’s really a disease to try to infect other people judgments and thus their minds that way.
it sure doesn’t work on me.
i was 95% of the time of the same opinion than him on movies – and probably if you compare my list with Brody writings during 30 years, it would match a lot – but now, I am probably at 35% with him.
i would love to see one movie mainly about Blacks that would be, not only a very good movie, but a masterpiece. I haven’t seen one yet.
It’s implicit in the idea that “blacks/minorities need more representation in media” that they can’t relate to heroic nonblacks in media because they do not share the same race/general appearance, and vice versa. So critics pretending they don’t have an agenda is ridiculous when many of them buy into this idea or adjacent ones. They might be able to fool midwits but now we know their game.
Anime and I are both brilliant in every way. We have devised ways of integrating society.