Tags
For decades it was part of my New Year’s tradition to google Gallup’s most admired poll to see who the most admired man and women of the previous year was. You see, virtually every December since 1948, Gallup had been asking a representative sample of American adults to name (without prompting) the LIVING man and woman in the entire World they admired most (prior to 1948 they just asked the most admired person). Then without warning, the poll seems to have suddenly ended in 2020 (because Donald Trump dethroned Obama as the most admired man?). What a shame to end a 72 year tradition over petty politics, so with the help of survey monkey, I took over the poll myself on representative samples of Americans at the end of both 2023 and 2024.
Despite some media describing Barack Obama as the biggest loser of 2024 (given the defeat of the Democratic party and the backlash he endured from black men on social media) he towered as the most admired man in the entire World with an astonishing 17% of Americans naming him their most or second most admired living man. Obama was more admired than President-elect Trump (8%) and Elon Musk (7%) combined which is both a testament to Obama’s God-like status, and to the fact Musk has effectively seized half of what would normally be the President-elect’s support. They’re not calling him “President Musk” for nothing.
Despite this, Trump still enjoyed twice as much support as sitting President Joe Biden (4%), perhaps the only sitting President in the history of the poll to never be the most admired man or the most admired self-made man.
On the female side of the poll there is no clear winner, with both Kamala Harris and Michelle Obama tied with 11% of Americans naming either as their most (or second most) admired woman. But Harris can outright claim to be the most admired self-made woman since unlike the First Ladies who typically top the female side of the poll, she is admired in her own right, instead of standing in her husband’s light.
| Most admired man (Dec 2024) | Most admired man (Dec 2023) | Most admired woman (Dec 2024) | Most admired woman (Dec 2023) |
| Barack Obama 17% (self-made) | Barack Obama 14% (self-made) | Kamala Harris 11% (self-made) Michelle Obama 11% | Michelle Obama 12% |
| Donald Trump 8% | Donald Trump 9% | Oprah Winfrey 5% (self-made) Hillary Clinton 5% | Oprah Winfrey 7% (self-made) |
| Elon Musk 7% (self-made) | Elon Musk 5% (self-made) | Malala Yousafzai 3% (self-made) Catherine, Princess of Wales 3% Dolly Parton 3% (self-made) | Hillary Clinton 3% Kamala Harris 3% (self-made) Dolly Parton 3% (self-made) Jill Biden 3% |
| Pope Francis 4% (self-made) Joe Biden 4% (self-made) | Jimmy Carter 4% (self-made) Keanu Reeves 4% (self-made) | Brett Cooper 2% (self-made) Melinda Gates 2% Gisèle Pelicot 2% (self-made) | Mary J. Blige 2% (self-made) Candace Cameron Bure 2% (self-made) Selena Gomez 2% (self-made) Alicia Keys 2% (self-made) Candace Owens 2% (self-made) |
| Volodymyr Zelenskyy 2% (self-made) Bernie Sanders 2% (self-made) Warren Buffet 2% (self-made) Bill Gates 2% (self-made) | Joe Biden 3% (self-made) | ||
| Jeff Bezos 2% (self-made) Jackie Chan 2%(self-made) Bill Gates 2% (self-made) Gavin Newsom 2% (self-made) Arnold Schwarzenegger 2% (self-made) Sylvester Stallone 2% (self-made) Bernie Sanders 2% (self-made) | |||
With Presidents and first ladies dominating the poll, it seems to be a good measure of what most people consider “power” in the conventional sense, and indeed in a putative democracy like the United States, the most popular, should be the most powerful. But the winners of this poll are not merely popular (and in some cases actually have low approval ratings) but rather they are the most worshiped (admired more than virtually any human on Earth) by what was until recently, the World’s sole super power, and thus these people are essentially Gods. Especially the “self-made” ones, because God, by definition, would be the only thing that literally made itself.
So let’s take a look back at the most worshiped men and women each year, within the World’s top super-power; arguably the most powerful man and woman each year (self-made and legacy). Note that all the polling was done by Gallup except for 2023 and 2024 when I rescued the abandoned poll via survey monkey. For every year self-made status was decided by me.
The most striking thing I notice about the poll results below is how consistently white the poll winners were before the 21st century. Despite being over 12% of America, it was simply unthinkable that a black could be the most worshipped man or woman (self-made or legacy) in a country as powerful as America. Then in 1997, Oprah shattered the color barrier in the self-made woman category, followed several years later by Colin Powell in the self-made man category. However Powell like Barack Obama are at least half-Caucasoid. Sadly, there’s no evidence that ANY true black in World history has ever been the most worshiped man or self-made man within the most powerful nation of any time. Only among the less powerful sex have the truly black (Oprah, Michelle Obama) been able to recently attain God status.
*Note the female half of the poll was not given in 1967, and the entire poll was not given in 1975 & 1976.
*Note 2020 was the last year Gallup conducted the poll but I resurrected it in 2023 via survey monkey.
Pumpkin Person 
Its Platos Cave.
Mugabe: I lived so long in the cave that when they took me out, I no longer existed.
Dumbass. Worse than RR and Melo.
If the ‘there, there’ exists in constitutional law it would be a weird amorphous blob like entity flashing different colours from moment to moment that has aspects of original intent, judicial review, common sense, majoritarian/utilitarianism and a sprinkle of autism.
Guys is Mugabe actually an AI chatbot?
^^^FLAMING GAY JEW^^^
Mug of Pee’s antisemitism against pill is despicable.
Its very interesting the high IQ gypsies dont have a written consitution. Not for the reasons Britain doesn’t but for very high IQ reasons. They know the nature of each other. They know it. Swank is pretty open about it. He was here and he described it so that even Melo or a 12 year old could understand their views of law.
Autist: The law exists. Its on paper.
Schiz: It kind of exists…in my imagination.
Like Peterson I value both views.
What I find annoying is that people expect you to be able to articulate your view on a dime. There are correct (or at least, noncontradictory and sound) arguments that are not always easy to articulate, especially at will. On the other hand, I value the more autistic idea that you can actually articulate any argument given the right conceptual tools and terms. I don’t think those are actually schiz/autistic views though, but kind of analogous to things being physically tangible vs. abstract.
The people create the government as to the quality of that government.
Yet pill still thinks I am autistic.
sad
You are the dictionary, picture book and whatever defintion of autist.
pill
you can admit your wrong
it is easy
just say
i am sorry Anime I was wrong that I said you were autistic
These confimation hearings are a complete shitshow. I half expect krusty the clown to give testimony.
I’ve been thinking about this the wrong way about RaceRealist.
Even my subtard friend IQ 60 understood what an atom was and I am sure he would understand what a shape is.
So rr has a spatial intelligence of 45
This is why he failed to understand what chemistry is when I tried to explain it as how it relates to genetics.
His verbal tilt is extremely high (140?) but spatial stuff.. I feel sorry for him. No wonder he was in the school he was in.
I’ve taken chemistry courses before. Recall you haven’t even given coherent counters to the arguments I’ve made regarding the irreducibility of biology.
DST > hereditarianism
Here’s the developmental systems argument against hereditarianism.
<em>Hereditarianism has many entailments, but a main one is that genes are necessary and sufficient for phenotypes. Hereditarianism can be defined succinctly as: the belief that human traits, behaviors, and capabilities are predominantly or solely caused by genetic inheritance, with the environment being negligible. So this belief implies that genes are necessary (without the specific genes, the trait wouldn’t appear) and sufficient (the genes in question can alone account for the appearance of the trait without significant environmental influence). So if genes are sufficient for phenotypes, then we could predict one’s phenotype from one’s genotype. (It’s also reductionist and deterministic). That a form of genetic determinism is taught in schools (Jamieson and Radick, 2017) is one reason why this hereditarian view must be fought.
But if development is understood as the dynamic interaction between genes, environment, and developmental products where no single factor dominates in the development of an organism (the DST view), then a view that assumes the primacy of one of the developmental resources (hereditarianism and it’s assumption about genes), then this leads to a logical incompatibility and incoherence. Since certain things are true about organismal development, then hereditarianism cannot possibly be true. I have made a similar argument to this before, but I have not formalized it in this way. Since we know that development is context-dependent, and we know that hereditarianism assumes the context-independence of genes, we can rightly assume that hereditarianism is false. Furthermore, since hereditarianism assumes no or negligible developmental plasticity, then that’s another reason to reject it. Here’s the argument:
(1) Hereditarianism (H) implies genetic determinism (GD).
(2) GD implies negligible developmental plasticity (DP).
(3) But DP isn’t negligible.
(C) Therefore H is false.
H=hereditarianism
GD=genetic determinism
D=developmental plasticity/environmental influence
(1) H->GD
(2) GD->¬D
(3) D
(C) ∴¬H
Under the assumption that hereditarianism is a species of genetic determinism, and DST is a context-dependent account of development: If DST is accurate, then hereditarianism is false. We know that traits aren’t genetically determined, so DST is accurate. Therefore, hereditarianism must be false.</em>
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2025/01/27/the-developmental-systems-argument-against-hereditarianism/
Or another argument:
P1: If hereditarianism is true, then strong causal parity is false.
P2: Strong causal parity is true.
C: Therefore hereditarianism must be false.
^^^LOW IQ AUTISM^^^
How do we know that the context is not something that is mostly equalized compared to the variability of genes (and that for contexts that are not equalized, they lead to massive, obvious developmental disabilities or injuries/death). For example, children raised with no language may never speak or learn it after a certain age, or those not properly exposed to early feedback that would restrain anti-social impulses and impose upon them greater cognitive/emotional empathy will be categorically different than those who did. Teens who get 2000 kcal/day will probably not be much smaller in terms of overall bone and muscular mass than teens who get 4000 kcal/day.
And regardless of determinism, if certain genes are necessary (or practically necessary) to enable the acquisition of certain traits, it means that losing such a gene means the trait may never develop.
What is the response to this?
A lot of the Developmental Systems Theory arguments depend heavily on vaguely quantifiable words like “predominantly”, “negligible”, and “solely”, even though we don’t have a fundamental mechanistic understanding of how organisms develop in specific ways, like how countless interactions between genes, cells, tissues, and environments actually lead to development in any specific way.
It is recommended we take 75-90 mg of Vitamin C per day, but our bodies are great at maintaining homeostasis and we can take up to 2000 mg and tolerate it with little or no ill effects. Obviously this tolerance range depends on other factors as well, but it is an example of how context, though seemingly extremely variable amongst human populations when viewed from within those contexts, could be quite narrow and lead to negligible environmental impact when understood in a greater context.
Furthermore, what layers of human experience and complexity and are we going to sacrifice for the goal equity? At what point do we give up on that goal due to diminishing returns?
“How do we know that the context is not something that is mostly equalized compared to the variability of genes (and that for contexts that are not equalized, they lead to massive, obvious developmental disabilities or injuries/death).”
Can you elaborate on this?
“if certain genes are necessary (or practically necessary) to enable the acquisition of certain traits, it means that losing such a gene means the trait may never develop.”
Knockout studies show that if a certain gene is knocked out, then a phenomenon called “genetic compensation” occurs. The causal parity (DST) claim is that if you change any resources (or if anything happens to them), then trait ontogeny will be impeded. That doesn’t make genes special developmental resources—all developmental resources are necessary and the sufficient cause is the developmental system.
Anyway, obviously the arguments I’ve given above are valid, and they’re obviously sound based on what we know about organismal development. Systems biology >reductionist biology.
You simply don’t understand.
In any “developmental system” a gene as an allele will change the feedback of the system.
This is not deterministic but you don’t care about my views anyway.
As such some alleles as being a different molecular structure will make the chemical reactions change at different rates thus the cells will metabolize differently than they would with other alleles. A protein is a catalytic reactor in chemistry. We can say if the catalyst is changed growth of the organize changes. Everyone has thousands of alleles combinations no one but them have. They will make both the body and brain plastic function as feedback not the same as in anyone else.
You can say an allele don’t change the chemical function of reaction rates of the proteins but then you must say that differences in proteins has nothing to do with the shape of it. That any protein no matter what allele it comes from is chemically the same as any other protein. If all proteins are equivalent then no need for different sets of Genes is necessary. The reason genes are different is because different proteins WILL change the chemical reaction rates of the feedback system.
All this coming down to the fact that when a person has different plastic configurations they will grow (“development”) at the rates of which that plastic is moldable.
In rr view a brains plastic is the same in all humans. That alleles don’t change the type of plastic there is or how that plastic operates when encountered by the impressions of the environment.
Given that no two humans have the same combination of alleles they will have a different set of plastic that molds at different rates when the cells must keep homeostasis. This will mean that the impressions of the environment will effect grow of the brain and body to increase or decrease the chemical reactions those cells need to perform by what enzymes are in them i.e. the shape of a protein by the allele.
Now some protein are not from specific allele and are made by other proteins but that doesn’t mean alleles doesn’t matter. For example the protein pumps of my neuroreceptors at a spot in the brain will not uptake cannabinoids. So I cannot get high from cannabis. This changes how my pain system is structured and so how my brain is wired.
A brain as it is wired can learn differently by that structure or development is impossible given that we need a structure before the impressions of the environment can store them as memories. I learned not to do certain activities because of low pain threshold that would not exist if my receptors intook cannabinoids.
So it is true that alleles can change the structure of brains. And can change how they learn. That is not to say it is deterministic.
And if it is the case plastic can be different and have learning be effected by the structure of the brain then it it is true that the combination of alleles can in some way make less or more the flexibility of the plastic to learn differently the things humans learn.
And it is also true that when thinking that the plastic will make it so some people can deal with different amounts of information in solving problems because the overall symmetry of the problems will be kept in mind by how much the overall solutions are “seen” to work out, a person that “see” more solutions by comparison of the total information in the problem as to what results can be pattern recognized. This is only true because the structure of the plastic is “allowing” more pattern comparison to take place in memory. It is why my sister can copy a scene in photo realistic details but I cannot but am still good at other patterns. The plastic in both our brains has a flexibility not the same distribution I believe has much to do with how alleles made possible structure of the paths we went down in what we each could do creating different sets of hardwired memory systems. It is just that some memory systems are more overall symmetrical and expansive in what patterns the can solve as in “seeing” them together that can produce good results to problems.
A person that has certain combinations of alleles in my experience has a plastic brain that both absorb and produces patterns in greater amounts than the normal average person. Not as a savant but overall better at everything. The brain of the person I know works together as a system synchronize all the activities thus can work on multiple problems at the same time as they keep in mind everything that needs to be done. Not to say everything about them is due to their alleles combination but I cannot see why they would know how to solve such problems better without the brain coordination of their memory. I cannot do what they do and it is not because anyone taught them. They just were smart.
I believe that my brains coordination is off symmetrically and I tried to learn coding but I can’t. If I could have better executive function I could but I don’t know how to fix that. Some people at twelve years old today and in the past did by themselves but it was because of executive functioning.
it might be because I did break the frontal lobes in my head but I am not sure you can say brains have no connection to intelligence
if they did not then I could do things the same as anyone else
otherwise
i want to bash my head against the wall
it takes too much effort to use my front brain
i feel like derp
ok
thanks
bye
“Can you elaborate on this?”
There is seemingly a huge gap between the inability to use language and the ability to use it, for example, and more scholastic and verbal resources and practice could increase the verbal ability of someone but with diminishing returns compared to the main gap of being exposed enough to use language at all.
It’s likely for intelligence especially and behavior, a lot of what is context dependent is also compensated for and people hover to some mean that is heavily correlated with their genetics (they plateau) or some similar deterministic phenomena.
“Knockout studies show that if a certain gene is knocked out, then a phenomenon called “genetic compensation” occurs. The causal parity (DST) claim is that if you change any resources (or if anything happens to them), then trait ontogeny will be impeded. That doesn’t make genes special developmental resources—all developmental resources are necessary and the sufficient cause is the developmental system.”
It sounds like you’re both assuming that the resources will lead to the trait being developed, and can be compensated, yet they will also often be impeded without specific resources. That shows that sometimes specific resources can be replaced, so that traits cannot be reduced to those resources… but it also shows the opposite of your contention.
If different resources can be replaced and lead to the same outcomes, there IS a deterministic path towards some trait that is reduced to that organism’s physical/biological structure… it just isn’t one specific gene. You’re stating that varying environmental contexts will lead the organism striving to develop the same way… contradicting your own premise.
Showing the remarkable ability of an organism to adapt despite physical stressors CAN show that environment shapes us… but it also can show that we shape up a certain way despite the environment. Since you’re expanding the organism’s developmental trajectory to include the environment and whole physical structure of the organism as a necessary ingredient, you can’t also use that to show that our development is “changed” or “caused to be different” depending on the environmental context more than you’ve shown that the organism is adapting its environmental/physical context to become what it is developing into.
Showing that organisms are robust as developmental systems does not defeat inheritance and heritary reductionism, it just means that the development trajectory that is inherited is actually even more robust than the being dependent on the genome.
“In any “developmental system” a gene as an allele will change the feedback of the system.”
Any change to the system will change the feedback/forward loops in the system. Here’s you, trying to privilege genes when we know that no developmental resources are privileged.
“They will make both the body and brain plastic function as feedback not the same as in anyone else.”
What, exactly, do you think I’m arguing? Which premises of my arguments does this address?
“If all proteins are equivalent then no need for different sets of Genes is necessary.”
Is that an entailment of any argument I made?
Do you agree that genes aren’t expressed in isolation? Do you think genes are blueprints?
A number of things can lead to different developmental outcomes. That a thing X could happen during development that leads to trait T not being actualized doesn’t mean that GD is true (that genes are blueprints and carry instructions, that genes are active causes of development).
Post this one.
“There is seemingly a huge gap between the inability to use language and the ability to use it, for example, and more scholastic and verbal resources and practice could increase the verbal ability of someone but with diminishing returns compared to the main gap of being exposed enough to use language at all.”
I agree with this, and I think this is where Vygotsky’s theory of learning and development come into play. Without certain things happening during crucial developmental windows, children probably won’t, for example, learn language and certain other things that come from being immersed in culture and being around teachers which then guide their learning and development.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2023/07/05/from-blank-slates-to-dynamic-interactions-dualistic-experiential-constructivism-challenges-hereditarian-assumptions/
“That shows that sometimes specific resources can be replaced, so that traits cannot be reduced to those resources… but it also shows the opposite of your contention.”
Traits aren’t reduced to a specific resource due to the interactions of those resources.
“If different resources can be replaced and lead to the same outcomes, there IS a deterministic path towards some trait that is reduced to that organism’s physical/biological structure… it just isn’t one specific gene. You’re stating that varying environmental contexts will lead the organism striving to develop the same way… contradicting your own premise.”
Varying things occurring in the environment can lead to changes in development. One good example is sex determination in crocodiles. Around 30 degrees Celsius, the sex is female. Above 34 degrees Celsius, the sex is male.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11240705/
The environment isn’t a traditional “resource”, but the developmental resources react to what happens in the environment, and development is then self-organized to another pathway. This could also lead to directed mutations.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2023/03/08/directed-mutations-epigenetics-and-evolution/
“Since you’re expanding the organism’s developmental trajectory to include the environment and whole physical structure of the organism as a necessary ingredient, you can’t also use that to show that our development is “changed” or “caused to be different” depending on the environmental context more than you’ve shown that the organism is adapting its environmental/physical context to become what it is developing into.”
I think you’re equating “development being influenced by environment and physical structure” with “the organism adaptive its environmental/physical context to become what it is developing into.” “Influence” means the environment and physical structure affect how development unfolds, while “adaptation” means the organism actively changing its environment or itself to fit a certain developmental outcome/due to changes in its environment. Those two things aren’t mutually exclusive—organisms can be influenced by environment while also adapting to it. So the right conclusion is “development can be both changed by the environmental context and involve the organism adapting its environmental/physical context as part of its developmental process.”
“it just means that the development trajectory that is inherited is actually even more robust than the being dependent on the genome.”
Do you agree that more than genes are inherited?
as I said
rr don’t care about my views
And did not understand
i want to hit my head with a brick
who said anything about privilege
why must rr put racism in everything
why must rr only think about himself
i said brains plastic can be different because of allele
so why can not brains have different intelligence?
hereditarian this
hereditarian that
racism racism racism
you don’t give a fuck
maybe it would be good to start over
rr believes I’m stupid and hereditarian
therefore must stawman all my views to be that way
unless this changes
he will continue to call me racist for believing brains are involved with intelligence
i need to breathe
rr believes I’m stupid and hereditarian
Sadly if this were a question on the WISC-R social judgement subtest, you would have failed that item
“If you were talking to someone who thought you were stupid; what would you do?”
2 point answer: “I would show that I am smart”
1 point answer “I would stop talking to them”
0 point answer “I would tell everyone that someone thinks I’m stupid”
Yes but the idea that an organism can adapt to losing one of its resources by replacing it shows that it has adapted its other parts of its developmental system to achieve the same ends regardless of the resources thrown at it. To me, that indicates that traits are heritable more than the opposite.
It means that changing development (such as with human beings) to reach a certain end might even be harder, without breaking the whole organism. If the heritability doesn’t even rest in specific genes, yet development is still inherited.
Yes.
pp
you know that rr is trying to prove intelligence cannot be measured.
if he cannot do it honesty he must do it dishonestly
that means he either doesn’t want to understand on purpose or he is incapable of understanding because he is discounting everything I say
the second option is unlikely so in the other option he must be dishonest
you think I want to look stupid pp?
no
but maybe he does
can you pp see the implications or must I tell you them?
character assassination
its what you do when you are scared of people that are telling people something you don’t want them to know
brains are involved with intelligence
it scares some people pp
wonder why?
intelligence is threatening
so if it doesn’t exist
no one is threatened
“who said anything about privilege
why must rr put racism in everything”
Hahaha
“To me, that indicates that traits are heritable more than the opposite.”
My claim isn’t that traits aren’t heritable (the non-statistical version of “heritable”).
“If the heritability doesn’t even rest in specific genes, yet development is still inherited.”
Well genes merely react to environmental/other kinds of triggering signals—they are reactive, and that’s how the information that hereditarians think are “in the genes” are reliably constructed through developmental history of certain organisms.
I don’t necessarily disagree with “it just means that the development trajectory that is inherited is actually even more robust than the being dependent on the genome.” But if more than genes are inherited, then would you also agree that something we could think is “genetic” could be deceptively seen as “genetic”, when it actually isn’t, due to the position I’ve outlined here?
More incoherent babbling.
RR, if something inherited in a way that doesn’t rely on genes, but is still resistant to change from the environment (because it compensated for whatever resources were lost) that only bolsters the claims of those who believe in racial IQ/behavioral differences. Since those are more strongly tied to one’s lineage, even beyond the genome or specific genes.
Well yea, because environments are inherited too (this is like the only valid finding of behavioral genetics, I think, and even then we knew of that before the advent of the field). And since environments are inherited too, and being immersed in specific environments, engaging with different cultural and eventually psychological tools, and engaging with more knowledgeable others, this is why there are performance gaps on standardized tests. No genes required for the explanation of racial IQ differences (which the arguments above take care of in refuting genes as active causes—the hereditarian hypothesis).
But since genes are also inherited, no environment required for the explanation of racial IQ differences.
The arguments I posted above refute the hereditarian assumption about genes. So using Vygotsky’s theory, I can rightly conclude that environment is the cause of racial IQ differences.
So do you also think environment caused the black-white skin color difference?
But the whole organism is resistant to environmental change. Being immersed does not necessarily help. I wouldn’t become a female if I went to an all-girls’ school as a child.
Engaging with different cultural tools does not change your development trajectory if it is already resistant to change.
Of course I see that human brains and learned culture is more nuanced and plastic than the rest of the organism development which basically is meant to respond to predictable physical needs… but conversely the more plastic and abstract the input (such as culture), the more the initial trajectory of the development matters.
So yes, we can learn from people with more knowledge… but our response to that education depends on our trajectory and our initial states… and even with correction, our response to that correction depends on those things, ad infinitum. Since there is no mechanistic explanation of intelligence, or culture, or consciousness and learning and how that impacts development, you are left with the black box of cultural acquisition (much like AI algorithms are opaque to our understanding after being trained enough) as to how culture can influence development.
“So do you also think environment caused the black-white skin color difference?”
Ultimately, over evolutionary time? Yes, of course. Genes are followers, not leaders, in evolution.
“Engaging with different cultural tools does not change your development trajectory if it is already resistant to change.”
Engaging with different cultural tools would necessarily change a developmental trajectory (since one would learn different things). So being immersed in different cultures being around different MKOs (more knowledgeable others) would then change that developmental trajectory due to the learned culture.
But among blacks and whites living today; what caused their average skin color difference? DNA or environment?
Culture isn’t just absorbed. It requires interpretation… by something that can interpret it… namely the mind/body of the person acquiring the culture.
No one disagrees that people learn, and no one disagrees that by changing the environmental inputs you can change people’s minds (or “development”) in specific direction… but you already have to know that a certain environmental input will cause a specific change and that a specific organism is even capable of such a change.
IQ is not very trainable by basically any means barring a complete overall of the organism, which is obviously way beyond current possibility… so that pretty much defeats the idea that IQ differences between races and lineages can be equalized through any means beyond something equivalent to changing the race.
Learning is automatic, and it’s automatic because that’s what the organism is already ready to do… and it has its own specific way of doing it, depending on the phenotype.
If anything you’re making the argument for hereditarians stronger… not even gene therapy can change a human’s inherited development trajectory towards some specific set of behaviors or cultural acquisition ability.
“But among blacks and whites living today; what caused their average skin color difference? DNA or environment?”
The proximate cause is genes (interacting with other levels of biological systems). The ultimate cause is ancestral environment.
Lurker, IQ is trainable, and all it takes is being exposed to the item content. Tests don’t drop from the sky, they’re created by humans immersed in different cultural contexts.
Of course, because the ancestral environment is what selected the genes.
” (interacting with other levels of biological systems).”
Not even. You could literally edit the genes and nothing else and the color would change. But I agree that complex traits like IQ and autism involve interactions.
Genes are followers, not leaders, in evolution. (Passive, not active, causes.)
What do you mean “not even”? That’s a basic biological fact.
No environment are followers because the first stage of life is just the fertilized egg.
“Lurker, IQ is trainable, and all it takes is being exposed to the item content. Tests don’t drop from the sky, they’re created by humans immersed in different cultural contexts.”
But it literally isn’t… if it were, you’d see people go from 100 IQ to 150 IQ on any random measure of intelligence. The only thing you ever see is people train for certain IQ tests and do better on those, yet you see people with higher G repeatedly do well on completely different tests.
Tests don’t drop from the sky, but the human consciousness and interactions they have with the environment… literally drop from the sky when you trace it far enough. Especially consciousness, which might as well be in the sky right now. It’s actually funny that you phrased it that way given that is literally where your argument leads, given your mind-body dualism and complete discounting of physical reductionism.
I just said literal quite a bit, but you need to get literal sometimes when dealing with abstract and self-referential topics like these.
“But it literally isn’t…”
Results from HeadStart programs literally show this. And due to what we know about IQ and achievement tests, it’s literally trainable.
The fertilized egg is in an environment, and the organism that carries the fertilized egg is in an environment. I’m reminded of this from Lewontin in the forward to the 2000 edition of Oyama’s “The Ontogeny of Information”:
“There are no “gene actions” outside environments, and no “environmental actions” can occur in the absence of genes. The very status of environment as a contributing cause to the nature of an organism depends on the existence of a developing organism. Without organisms there may be a physical world, but there are no environments. In like manner no organisms exist in the abstract without environments, although there may be naked DNA molecules lying in the dust. Organisms are the nexus of external circumstances and DNA molecules that make these physical circumstances into causes of development in the first place. They become causes only at their nexus, and they cannot exist as causes except in their simultaneous action. That is the essence of Oyama’s claim that information comes into existence only in the process of Ontogeny.”
The fertilized egg is in an environment, and the organism that carries the fertilized egg is in an environment.
Good point but we know from dog cloning that those environments have almost no impact on average. When a dog is cloned its DNA gets inserted into another dog’s egg and uterus yet the cloned dog turns out just like the original in most cases.
who the fuck says DNA is just lying in dust?
more strawmen
if different proteins are not needed for organism to function chemically just say so
this is the sadliest of the sadliest argument there is
if we could make brains develop in such a way as to increase intelligence then it would be possible to create people like Tesla and von Neumann and davinchi
but if we cannot do this at all ages then this proves brains are involved with their structures that intelligence is the way a brain is configured to be intelligent.
a brain that developed into these peoples level of intelligence could be brain scanned.
so development proves the opposite of what rr says. Development proves brains can be measured as to there structure and configuration how smart a person is. Otherwise brains don’t do anything. All brains would be equally smart no matter what development they had and at any age.
“Results from HeadStart programs literally show this. And due to what we know about IQ and achievement tests, it’s literally trainable.”
If you increase everyone’s IQ by 20, you still have whatever gaps in between individuals and groups. That’s what the Flynn Effect was supposedly, anyway. No evidence is suggesting that it is not true.
It’s the same as if you did strength training for men and women… the strength gap would remain. Perhaps it would get even bigger by some measure.
It’s helpful to know you can train IQ by some amount, or even G, but ultimately this doesn’t get us closer to showing we can “develop” higher IQs through the environment, since you’ve still demonstrated there is a difference between organisms and their behavior/intelligence despite the environmental context. Erasing genes from the equation by stating they are “followers” just means you are extending the developmental factors across generations and generations, making immediate change in an organisms’ lifetime possibly even more difficult. (It could also show that organisms can change a lot within a lifetime despite what they have inherited, but it can also show they inherited a lot over generations that they can only change a little within a lifetime). That’s the problem when you have a black box instead of a total mechanistic explanation of development.
what the hell is development anyway without changes in the brain.
again a brain develops into a smarter brain will show up in a scan or nothing happened.
children grow mylination the axon in scans so if this is true then we should see where and in what way they become smarter
and if true we will see why some people have extreme high intelligence
because they will have complex structures that let’s them have greater cognitive load than anyone else.
eeg will also show how cog load exists when we see the signal telling us how complex the mylination is
^^^ reading comprehension.
“a brain that developed into these peoples level of intelligence could be brain scanned.
so development proves the opposite of what rr says. Development proves brains can be measured as to there structure and configuration how smart a person is. Otherwise brains don’t do anything. All brains would be equally smart no matter what development they had and at any age.”
“I-I’m not a reductionist!” *posts gene and brain/neuro-reductionism* hmmm
Lurker, I don’t look at IQ as causal for anything, so the fact that a gap would remain doesn’t matter. And the fact that a gap would still remain would just mean that more exposure to the test items occurred.
“It’s the same as if you did strength training for men and women… the strength gap would remain. Perhaps it would get even bigger by some measure.”
I made a similar argument to this. Hereditarians claim that HeadStart doesn’t work since once the child leaves the enriched environment that IQ gains face out. So I guess going to the gym doesn’t work since once you stop the gains fade out. Those are analogous.
“Erasing genes from the equation by stating they are “followers” just means you are extending the developmental factors across generations and generations, making immediate change in an organisms’ lifetime possibly even more difficult.”
It is true that the developmental factors do extend across generations, and developmental systems are what are inherited (everything that makes up the developmental system). But organisms are active players in the environment, and can change due to the needs of the immediate environment (also remember that directed mutations are a thing as well).
How is the DST view a black box explanation of development and not a mechanistic explanation? Hereditarianism doesn’t even have a mechanistic explanation of trait development/ontogeny/fixation—it’s literally just “genes did it.” Compelling.
There are mixed results on that, and there are some newspaper articles that say that people who cloned their pets have different personalities. Phenotypic development is more complex than genes. We know that identical DNA doesn’t necessarily equal identical phenotypes. There’s also behavioral plasticity and mtDNA differences (mitochondria plays a role in energy production and other cellular functions which would then introduce variability in the clones).
That’s not an argument for genetic reductionism/determinism—we know how organisms develop, and that organismal development refute GR/GD.
The fact that dog clones are generally very similar to the original (or people wouldn’t do it) DESPITE not having the same mitochondrial DNA is an argument FOR not AGAINST genetic potency because imagine how much more similar they’d be if the clone had ALL the DNA of the original, including the mitochondrial. The bottom line is if I put your DNA in someone else’s egg, the child will be much more similar to you than if I put someone else’s DNA in the fertilized egg you came from.
scanning brains is a proven science
how is that reductionist
and
genes are for something or there would be no reason for organisms to have them
the simple fact is you don’t want genes brains or intelligence to be connected in any way, your biased against that so misrepresenting me all the time
But there are numerous articles stating that people who cloned their pet didn’t have the same personality—hmmm why may that be? At the end of the day, it’s based on certain assumptions, and since we know DST is true then we must have certain assumptions about development and what genes actually do during development.
“scanning brains is a proven science
how is that reductionist”
hahaha this guy. You just don’t get it.
But there are numerous articles stating that people who cloned their pet didn’t have the same personality—hmmm why may that be?
Because personality is not 100% heritable and no HBDer ever claimed it was, but genes cause more than environment as proven by the fact that putting your DNA in a random egg, womb and home will produce a more similar person to you than putting random DNA in your mom’s fertilized egg, womb and home.
rr is so dishonest
we can see in the brain how intelligence “develops”
again only because he defines intelligence as not in the brain can he say we don’t see this
PP, I think it matters what type of assumptions and theories we have. Since hereditarianism, as defined, can’t possibly be true, then the reductionist tilt you’re putting here fails.
Ak why is “develops” in scarequotes?
Since hereditarianism, as defined, can’t possibly be true,
How are you assuming it’s defined?
intelligence development without genes or a brain is impossible
que rr redefining words to suit his agenda
Hereditarianism has many entailments, but a main one is that genes are necessary and sufficient for phenotypes. Hereditarianism can be defined succinctly as: the belief that human traits, behaviors, and capabilities are predominantly or solely caused by genetic inheritance, with the environment being negligible. So this belief implies that genes are necessary (without the specific genes, the trait wouldn’t appear) and sufficient (the genes in question can alone account for the appearance of the trait without significant environmental influence). So if genes are sufficient for phenotypes, then we could predict one’s phenotype from one’s genotype.”
That’s a straw-man. Jensen is the poster-boy for hereditarianism and he did not believe genes were sufficient. He simply believed that in the modern United States, genes explain much more of the difference in IQ (between native-born individuals and races) than environment does as evidenced by experiments where you control for one of those variables and allow the other to vary. Though I agree the studies Jensen cited were imperfect and the true heritability may need to be lowered to reflect prenatal effects (including the egg environment) and reaction norms. I also agree that slicing the causation into parts is a bit misleading since unlike plants where the organism sits passively while environment can be controlled, humans interact with their environment causing a gene-environment feedback loop that is hard to disentangle. You also have indirect genetic effects where genes might cause a higher IQ, not because they code for better brain, but because they code for better looks thus causing more people to want to teach you.
^^^ doesn’t understand the distinction between “necessary” and “sufficient” conditions.
^^^ whatever suits your agenda bro
From the beginning you were wrong about me but that doesn’t suit your agenda to discredit me.
because you thought I was an easy target
What’s the distinction?
“[Jensen] did not believe genes were sufficient”
“[Jensen] simply believed that in the modern United States, genes explain much more of the difference in IQ than environment”
Seems like a contradiction to me.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with how I defined hereditarianism.
Regarding “true heritability”, I think that’s an oxymoron. And the 1997 Devlin et al paper (if I remember right) found much lower h2 than H and M claimed.
How is it a contradiction? Just because genes are not sufficient does not mean genes don’t explain more than environment, it just means both are necessary for a given phenotype. Indeed even if heritability were 100%, genes would STILL not be sufficient because a DNA molecule lying in a pile of sand is never going to grow into an organism.
Jensen is a hereditarian (H), you claim he doesn’t believe genes are alone sufficient for IQ (~Gs) but claims genes explain most IQ variance (Gm). So the contradiction is: H implies Gs, but Jensen’s says ~Gs despite Gm. Gm still is leads to a privileged resource (genes), though—again—Vygotsky’s theory attests that we should accept a more nuanced view on IQ development due to access to different cultural and psychological tools. That Jensen believes Gm yet according to you denies Gs is the contradiction.
necessary but not sufficient is such a non-specific statement. What genotype? Necessary and/or sufficient for what? What levels of probability define these terms? And in what society?
A better question might be something like what is the probability that someone with an IQ genotype above +X SD in current America will have an IQ phenotype above +X SD in current America? The answer to such questions is never going to be 100%, but in practice a cause is considered necessary if it precedes an outcome at least 90% to 95% of the time.
“I’ve taken chemistry courses before.”
??? No evidence you even made it past high school . You reject every single part of the science textbook from high school.
Name three things from a science textbook that I deny.
Natural Selection as an explanation of trait fixation in populations is 1.
The existence of general intelligence and measurability of it, if that’s actually in high school textbooks.
natural selection is a metaphor
if you don’t let it be one then of course you can say it’s not real as a dick move on your part
Darwin was just saying organisms that survive would be better adapted and those that died before reproductive success could be because they had defects. Features that help you survive give advantages.
he compared this to breeding
its an analogy
just let it be one
whats wrong with you guys?
“Natural Selection as an explanation of trait fixation in populations is 1.”
True.
“The existence of general intelligence and measurability of it, if that’s actually in high school textbooks.”
Doubtful. Probably in advanced psych courses.
The stupid people rr reads defined natural selection as not natural but as intentional selection.
that is how the get away with twisting the metaphor in such a way as to define it as not true
natural just means it is not a process by a mind but since selection can only be defined by them as by a mind they get away with it
twisting what Darwin said is part of culturalMarxism because subversion is what culturalMarxism does to everything.
“The stupid people rr reads defined natural selection as not natural but as intentional selection.
that is how the get away with twisting the metaphor in such a way as to define it as not true”
You don’t understand Fodor’s argument.
redefining natural selection in such a way as to say it is false is dishonest
variation of traits over time in not intentional it just happens but as long as a trait is useful it stays in the environment
when snakes lost their legs it was because their ancestors moved into areas when that trait was not useful but the ones who did not lose their legs were in another environment. The fact that legs appear on fish shows that fins can turn into legs because in swamps mobility is useful to not die by not getting caught in weeds. Salamanders still live in ponds because most did not move into the land further as it was occupied and their nitch was still viable.
basic evolution
What? How did Fodor do that? Can you quote him?
what I presented is how natural selection works therefore natural selection is true
rr ignoring it is proof he doesn’t want to be wrong
I reiterate: “What? How did Fodor do that? Can you quote him?”
“There is seemingly a huge gap between the inability to use language and the ability to use it, for example, and more scholastic and verbal resources and practice could increase the verbal ability of someone but with diminishing returns compared to the main gap of being exposed enough to use language at all.”
I agree with this, and I think this is where Vygotsky’s theory of learning and development come into play. Without certain things happening during crucial developmental windows, children probably won’t, for example, learn language and certain other things that come from being immersed in culture and being around teachers which then guide their learning and development.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2023/07/05/from-blank-slates-to-dynamic-interactions-dualistic-experiential-constructivism-challenges-hereditarian-assumptions/
“That shows that sometimes specific resources can be replaced, so that traits cannot be reduced to those resources… but it also shows the opposite of your contention.”
Traits aren’t reduced to a specific resource due to the interactions of those resources.
“If different resources can be replaced and lead to the same outcomes, there IS a deterministic path towards some trait that is reduced to that organism’s physical/biological structure… it just isn’t one specific gene. You’re stating that varying environmental contexts will lead the organism striving to develop the same way… contradicting your own premise.”
Varying things occurring in the environment can lead to changes in development. One good example is sex determination in crocodiles. Around 30 degrees Celsius, the sex is female. Above 34 degrees Celsius, the sex is male.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11240705/
The environment isn’t a traditional “resource”, but the developmental resources react to what happens in the environment, and development is then self-organized to another pathway. This could also lead to directed mutations.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2023/03/08/directed-mutations-epigenetics-and-evolution/
“Since you’re expanding the organism’s developmental trajectory to include the environment and whole physical structure of the organism as a necessary ingredient, you can’t also use that to show that our development is “changed” or “caused to be different” depending on the environmental context more than you’ve shown that the organism is adapting its environmental/physical context to become what it is developing into.”
I think you’re equating “development being influenced by environment and physical structure” with “the organism adaptive its environmental/physical context to become what it is developing into.” “Influence” means the environment and physical structure affect how development unfolds, while “adaptation” means the organism actively changing its environment or itself to fit a certain developmental outcome/due to changes in its environment. Those two things aren’t mutually exclusive—organisms can be influenced by environment while also adapting to it. So the right conclusion is “development can be both changed by the environmental context and involve the organism adapting its environmental/physical context as part of its developmental process.”
“it just means that the development trajectory that is inherited is actually even more robust than the being dependent on the genome.”
Do you agree that more than genes are inherited?
Comparing children and blacks is ridiculous. Yes if you raise a kid with wolves, it will never function again. 100% true. you can’t just copy and paste that to explain black stupidity. Blacks werent raised by wolves last i checked. Raised be a single mother oprah like person.
You’re almost there. The ENVIRONMENTAL DIFFERENCE explains why feral children may possibly never have a more human-like life, like speaking and whatnot. And that’s what explains racial IQ gaps—the environment. (And I’m operating on Vygotsky’s socio-historical theory of learning and development for that claim.)
environment is physical
if intelligence is nonphysical there should be no reason environment effects intelligence
children brains grow
so development is not happening in a vacuum it is happening in the brain
thus we can see what happens with scans
The universe is information. Information needs to be stored somewhere to be discerned. Hence, spacetime.
Whether you can combine this information and ability to process it in a way that satisfies your definition of general intelligence is up to you, I guess, barring a universally accepted and mathematically valid definition.
We can embrace nonlocality and the possible inability to map all types of information (like consciousness) to subatomic particles in the world. But given the above fact that information needs physical dimensionality it seems a bit stupid to deny the correlation between larger brains and a general ability to store more information and deal with or recieve more information in the world, which is roughly translated to G.
That’s nonsense, since Vygotsky’s theory is true.
Vygostsky said the brain doesn’t change in child development?
that development is nonphysical?
your stretching this dishonesty thing really far RaceRealist
What? No, he didn’t say that. What’s your understanding of his theory?
if he knows intelligence development happens in the brain then why do you say this cannot be seen in brain scans. let me guess your agenda would be hurt.
What do you think the theory is?
what I presented is how natural selection works therefore natural selection is true
rr ignoring is is proof he doesn’t want to be wrong
So maybe I was wrong again.
rr was never honest is any way
its sad when such high verbal IQ use it for evil purposes but that is life
no matter what I do rr is just going to deconstruct stawman my arguments, say thing about me that are not true
sorry your like this bro
To anyone that does study science tho can understand why yet I would venture that him and people like him will take advantage of you no matter how much you try. Trolls will be trolls. Stop responding as much as possible.
que in Micheal Jackson song:
they don’t really care about us
if we ignore where proteins come from and only look at what they do
then we see that the molecular structure of the protein when introduced into the cell will have a catalytic reaction rate that either speed up or slow down what is happening in the cell
and by proxy what is in the cell creates the plastic of the body
if a brain is made of plastic which it definitely is then the quality of that plastic and all the ways the plastic is effected by proteins will be part of how fast learning takes place and also the patterns we take in and put out.
it then becomes feasible to say a brains memory is more or less plastic in different ways
thus we can say some people can learn more in accordance with the memory and solve more problems with that memory
i know people that play fast games hard for me, as I am now I can’t learn faster than other people who could.
there would need to be extensive intervention to get the plastic to mold to that kind of input
but also as said before the overall coordinated memory system would need more synchrony to keep more in mind than I can currently
in other words the jello of the brain would need some kind of frequency meter and also measure of the reaction rates of the cells
memory is a complex thing that doesn’t shift overnight
the links and connections need maintenance like blood vessels and muscles do to move the body in order for cognition to become optimal
the utility is found in the rate of charge, where new structures form
that helps to know where things must go but only when untrained in what must happen next, to think slow for instance is when to much needs consideration, what can be done consciously and unconsciously. I have a hard time locating the food item on the groceries shelf.
simply attention perceptually and cognitive needs the structure good memory plastic, more gives greater capability to keep things in mind
Sorry you can’t identity arguments. Sorry you can’t respond directly to arguments even after having them explicitly shown to you bro.
by only caring about what the protein do and not where they come from then you cannot call me a hereditarian
you are a selfish person that misrepresent people and what they believe so I must structure my words in ways you cannot manipulate to make me look bad.
piss off you white supremacy dip shit RaceRealist
Are genes active or passive causes? Do they do anything in isolation? Where’s the error in my reasoning? How many arguments did I make, can you paste them from the above? (This will show me if you can’t identify arguments.)
why?
you will use them against me because you hate me
you think I don’t know this?
I am not going to be taken advantaged of by YOU
My guy, you’re just words on a screen to me. I don’t hate you. I just want you to answer the questions.
the longer I make my replies the more you discount them
first answer my question
do brains have anything to do with intelligence and in what way?
They’re necessary for intelligence. And the longer your reply, the more they lack content.
can people be more intelligent because they have high quality brain plastic that allows faster development?
What do you mean by that? What drives this?
Answer mmy questions.
its called metabolism
look it up dummy
How does that answer the question?
Genes help regulate the metabolic process of growth and self regulation
if you don’t understand its because of either stupidity or intentionally not wanting to
your too smart to not understand so it is because of your dishonestly you are discounting it
Is that an argument to privilege genes?
You keep misrepresenting me so you will say it does to keep calling me hereditarian no matter what I say.
You keep dodging questions.
You have always classified me as hereditarian by default from the beginning because of your subversion to discredit my view that intelligence is in the brain. You cannot be trusted to say anything about how genes brains and intelligence are connected or not. Like pumpkin said of your strawmen. You don’t care.
genes are for something but you don’t care you prejudged me so I cannot trust you. you won’t change your mind as I knew because if I am not hereditarian and brains are involved with intelligence you have to stop calling my views wrong. As I said I am not an easy target you can use your prejudices on to further your propaganda.
You keep not answering the questions. Genes are necessary not sufficient conditions for phenotypes. Did you read those papers I cited to you yet or not?
i think what rr is saying is that within a time frame of development people gain or lose intelligence by how they are stillmulated.
but he calls me names because he wants to make me look bad so I can only conclude he is a hypocrite
why misrepresent me anime unless he has something against me or needs me to further his agenda
rr: look at anime, he’s “hereditarian”, so everything he says is disqualified and we cannot trust him to know what intelligence is or where it comes from.
thats a dick move rr
you have this whole time been trying to discredit me for no reason other than I believe brains are involved with intelligence. I mean what is developing but the brain. You pushed me away from your side because you decided I was an easy target but I am not, sorry bro.
Just to be clear I supported Kamala/Rubin in the election. All this chaos is Melo’s fault for begging for another AA puppet.
They could have chosen even a neocon like Shapiro, Emmanual, Goldstein or even a real democrat jew like Williamson or Bernie but they went with a black woman with hebephrenia schiz. Great. Good job.
Trump using the plane crash to bash blacks working in air traffic control. Hahaha. This may actually make up for his degenerate econ policies.
I often wonder if Trump could take a totally unrelated crisis or topic and turn it into an opportunity to bash blacks. He did the same thign with the wildfire in LA.
Maybe he will literally say Ukraine was invaded because of dumb black politicians in Ukraine.
Do any of you dipshits consider Kash Patel a diversity hire?
Also, I’m still waiting on someone to acknowledge the fact that Elon Musk is literally what you retards claimed Soros was.
Melo’s town is becoming safer by the minute and he still comes here to complain.
Immigrants commit less crime than natives
(don’t post that “a” comment PP. Lol)
They create crime just by being there. Rapes and theft across the border. Contractors profiting off of slave labor. Illegals or legal Mexicans using harmful tactics to make their slave labor get in line, and stealing their wages, creating crime, an underclass, and greater social discohesion, further destroying the middle class.
It’s a fact that immigrants commit less crime than natives, lurker.
“Contractors profiting off of slave labor.”
Do you blame rape victims for wearing short skirts?
“Do you blame rape victims for wearing short skirts?”
No idea what you’re trying to say. Do I blame prostitutes and pimps if someone is buying? Yes, somewhat.
Do I blame contractors for making money by paying low wages and abusing their workers? Yes. Do I blame the illegals for crossing and feeding into that system? Yes. Do I blame the system? Yes. Do I blame people who engage with slave labor? Yes.
Any other questions?
“It’s a fact that immigrants commit less crime than natives, lurker.”
It’s a fact that they increase crime and general societal downgrading.
This is not a topic that is readily amiable to autistic arguments based on ridiculously constrained studies on crime.
it’s also a FACT immigrants commit MORE crime than natives who are NOT black.
SAD!
it’s also a FACT that h1b immigrants are not illegal immigrants who belong to ms13.
it’s also a FACT that rr’s “fact” is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!
it’s also a FACT that rr is mentally retarded.
Mug of Pee if you could afford it would you have cloned your dog?
I was also not referring to capturing of all illegals as making the US safer, but the fact that they’ve been specifically targeting people who committed other serious crimes.
But NPCs are going to NPC.
it’s immoral not to adopt a dog. so many dogs need a home or a better home. and they’re even more powerless than chirren.
So by that logic it’s also immoral to have children instead of adopting them. I feel bad for this Golden retriever forced to be a womb for dogs that are not her own:
peepee’s home shithole must have open borders because hypocrisy!
100% aryan + non-european = descendent of immigrants from what is today ukraine which is in europe.
peepee: but i don’t have to be consistent because low IQ and evil.
sad!
Oh mug of pee, if you didn’t live in such a shithole neighbourhood you wouldn’t even notice all the immigrants. Rich whites voted against trump
peepee: but no because dasss not what i meant by rich n shit.
i can’t find how rich pipo voted.
those making more than 200k USD per year split 45% for trump, 51% for karmelo.
peepee: you see duh majority n shit.
when that is just men trump won the majority.
peepee: but oprah told me…
LUHOO-UH-ZERRR!
when that is just white male heterosexual gentiles making more than 200k that’s probably > 60%.
SAD!
peepee is a great example of affirmative action.
she’s a political consultant who knows nothing about politics.
SAD!
I am a great example of affirmative action. All my actions affirm my greatness.
LOADED af-coded comment
Melo talks about how rough-and-tumble and ball busting illegals and other construction workers are, and how White guys aren’t cut out to be roofers anymore, yet cries when Elon does a gentle Roman salute or Trump says some mean things or when a bunch of illegal rapists/murderers get sent to Guantanamo Bay.
Sorry, you wanted MAGA White guys to get serious and post from 4chan and start taking risks. Here you go!
“Melo talks about how rough-and-tumble and ball busting illegals and other construction workers are, and how White guys aren’t cut out to be roofers anymore, yet cries when Elon does a gentle Roman salute or Trump says some mean things or when a bunch of illegal rapists/murderers get sent to Guantanamo Bay.”
LOL, what?
Do you even read what you type?
Is Nazism a masculinity thing for you?
Is working as a slave for some contractor a masculinity thing for you?
*not post from 4chan I mean
Pumpkin, have you seen this website?[redacted by pp, 2025-02-01]
Thanks for the great link! I redacted it because I may want pill and some others to try some of those so don’t want them getting early exposure.
Interesting… I found an NPR article about a study that show that if everyone in the world became illegal immigrants, crime rates would plummet. It’s like magic!
The reasons for this are nuanced and many-fold, but in any case we must all revoke citizenship in our own countries or move to others illegally for world peace.
Another study showed that having slave labor decreased costs greatly (only minimal housing, food, and clothing costs were necessary for the most part). Also restricting worker’s rights was sometimes a quick productivity boost!
Academic economists with PHDs literally believe these 2 sentences.
PP, it’s coming! ww.psypost.org/ai-reaches-human-level-performance-on-general-intelligence-test-what-does-it-mean/
Hey, if an illegal immigrant is coming here and doing crimes, deport them. But I think the real issue is the asylum process. We need to be fast-tracking immigration.
But we all know Mugabe and Lurker don’t care that the immigrants are supposedly doing crimes. They just care that they’re not white.
Why aren’t you guys calling for the deportation of Elon Musk? The illegal immigrant currently doing crimes.
“We need to be fast-tracking immigration.”
Sure.
“But we all know Mugabe and Lurker don’t care that the immigrants are supposedly doing crimes. They just care that they’re not white.”
Yeah because I don’t like my society devolving towards a tech elite and illegal brown or black/poor White slave class.
I’m progressive and I don’t mind immigration but it’s clear tech is progressing so fast that we need to start putting a hold on things that devolve societal connections further.
“Why aren’t you guys calling for the deportation of Elon Musk? The illegal immigrant currently doing crimes.”
Because closely related Western Europeans from English speaking countries match heritage American values much better. Plus, all super-wealthy people can get into the US no matter where they’re from, so there isn’t a point in deporting him. Ideally a heritage American would be even better in Elon’s place. But you have to make some sacrifices, and the US is already almost 40% non-White anyway. Close enough!
“I remember the days when we thought the future would be transhumanism, genetic engineering, renewable energy, free education and healthcare, etc.””
Those first two things are evil and counter to how reality works unless you’re an ignorant physicalist. The thing you and a couple of gay/trans authors have in common is loving transhumanism and direct genetic manipulation. I wonder what the second one is?
“I miss the old society. Imagine if white nationalists didn’t exist. We could be navigating the stars by now.”
Yeah the old society where you were surrounded by White people and the culture more resembled the ideals of an even greater majority White population.
Melo is living in a world where we can experience the incredibly efficient transformation of society through having top-down control from a imperfect “noble king” (at least for now) as opposed to a “tyrant”, which is greatly due to the effort of White nationalists (much like how White men made Melo’s childhood full of wonder and excitement and how they’ve done this throughout the ages) and all he can do is wallow in hatred because he wasn’t born White.
You should be embracing White Nationalists as your brothers in humanity!
“Because closely related Western Europeans from English speaking countries match heritage American values much better.”
Is Mexico not a part of the west? What cultural values do south Americans have the don’t align with American values?
“Yeah the old society where you were surrounded by White people and the culture more resembled the ideals of an even greater majority White population.”
Lol, no. The old society before you morons fell for Russian Propaganda.
Society was fine. You just needed to further progress toward intellectualism, not Christian and racial nationalism.
“Is Mexico not a part of the west? What cultural values do south Americans have the don’t align with American values?”
More prone to follow large crowds, less trustworthy when it comes to personal property (on average), less commitment to rules in the ways Whites have, willing to disobey rules more often if no one is watching. Lots of little differences that add up (on average). I mean things like traits that certain nationalities seem to posses more on average, which are influenced by culture, but also influence and make that culture. It’s a very advanced feedback loop that people like RR love to talk about when it comes to physical biological development.
“Lol, no. The old society before you morons fell for Russian Propaganda.
Society was fine. You just needed to further progress toward intellectualism, not Christian and racial nationalism.”
You mean when we totally ignored what Russians did like during the Cold War? When the believed threat of spreading communism didn’t effect our international policy at all? Lol.
Or when we were killing A-rabs for Israel?
When we had separate and equal water fountains?
Interesting ideas Melo
Also remember that the Musks also overstayed on their visas.
I miss the old society. Imagine if white nationalists didn’t exist. We could be navigating the stars by now.
No, instead we’re going to make everyone dumber.
I remember the days when we thought the future would be transhumanism, genetic engineering, renewable energy, free education and healthcare, etc.
All that is gone now.
You’re just inherently bad people who can’t handle the sight of someone who looks different than you. It ruins your idea of a perfect and clean society.
You literally view people with a different skin color as undesirables who don’t deserve the same things as you. You actually hold back the progress of mankind. Instead of sharing the wonders of your creation and uplifting those around you, you would rather use it to justify your misguided ideals of superiority and further hinder everything and everyone.
When white people met blacks, their first thought wasn’t “let’s show these people what they’re missing out on” your first thought was “how can we take advantage of these people.”
You’re confusing White people with specific ones (mostly Jews) and other black people. Interesting observation though!
When white people met blacks, their first thought wasn’t “let’s show these people what they’re missing out on” your first thought was “how can we take advantage of these people.”
Replace the word ‘white’ with ‘jewish’ and thats basically the first time youve made a correct sentence.
Beyond the very narrow range of “oppression” that involves highly morally superior and cooperative societies being able to “colonize” other societies because of their (genetically superior) culture and technology, which is literally exactly what people have been doing to each other since the dawn of time, or what they do to animals, it’s actually almost shocking how stupid the idea of DEI is.
I mean, you’re talking about the rare instance where a minority was passed over for the majority, in places where the majority was the… majority. So if we are actually to believe they were these “qualified” people getting passed over or were never given a chance, the majority still had 90%+ of the society to compete with. DEI with females makes more sense because they are half the population, but DEI with historically much smaller populations spits in the face of equality.
Of course, outcome differences for males and females is also easier to accept despite the equal population because they are so obviously physically different.
Sorry that life isn’t a Hallmark movie.
I remember growing up in a town with a large Hispanic population, and a majority lower income Hispanic school, and all those kids with last names like “Sheinbaum”. Those vaguely Germanic names were definitely as common as names like “Vasquez” and “Paniagua”.
That’s how I know Mexico is being ran by someone who cares and identifies with the primarily South Amerindian Mexican people foremost.
Hahaha. They always get to the top, no matter how tiny % of the pop.
keaton weiss appeared to reveal he could have been a general in hitler’s army. that is, he appeared to say his mother is not jewish.
pp
i redid the movie IQ
its not about anything to do with taste
but rather the age you need to be to fully grasp the concepts
the breakfast club and the other movies you had were all around IQ 100 which is equivalent to age 13
my first selection rounded is 106
but that is after it both went through the second matrix which got rid of the psudo IQ of the sofistication quotient
the second selection gave high results such as for the movie
Fiviel gose west an American tail
age 24 to understand
the formula I made for IQ to age is
(iq/15)•2
The result of the second matrix puts all together 175
This is not my IQ but I would say that the person who made most of these movies had iqs this high
Steven Spielberg
and also the movie
Fernguly the last rainforest
i saw most of these movies at age 7
16 movies
and this is not the limit of what I watched early in my life
–
currently I am reading two books on math from the library
Probability and Statistics how math can predict the future by Mike Goldsmith
and
The ten equations that rule the world by David Sumpter
i did not find any books by Arthur Jensen
in two months I will have money maybe and order his online
Reading books about math = autism.
^this is the reason pill doesn’t understand autism
You guys talk about mexico so much its making my ears bleed.
Can’t believe trump delayed tariffs because of just 10k soldiers to be sent to help the border…Im guessing Elon and the other car executives put severe pressure on him to relent and he needed an excuse to save face and delay the tariff.
Tariffs are pretty weird. Theyre both left wing and right wing.
Poor Puppy. Tariffs on puppys homeland. Puppy do you agree that canada should merge into the USA?
No we should not merge and Kristin Freeland will handle Trump:
The neoliberals will rig it to stop her. They want Carney or they might even ship Kamala up North to run in the primary.
Maybe Trudeau fired Freeland to HELP her become PM so she could separate herself from Trudeau publicly but behind the scenes they’re still friends. Just a theory.
https://x.com/Slatzism/status/1886511228819775761
Very important article for PP to read…
Everyone I’ve talked to who has lived/traveled in Toronto talks about how multicultural it is. It’s almost the main identity of it.
I remember my cousin was going on about how great Toronto is and I told him that I knew a lot of people who lived there and didn’t like it.
“Because they’re racist,” he replied. Rushton infamously said “Toronto the good” was wrecked by black people.
But Canada was over 90% white when I was growing up iirc. The only minorities tended to be people exceptional intelligence, character and work ethic, like my father and the Ivy League Indian woman who gave the WISC-R at all the local schools. As the quantity of immigrants increased, the quality went down.
“That’s a large part of the reason why Canada effectively became a crime-ridden series of Chinese-owned strip malls filled entirely with Indian-owned restaurants.”
And what pisses me off is that unlike the hardworking immigrants of old, many of the younger ones have become too lazy to serve parantha!
If Kamala ran for premier in Canada I would burst out laughing. “Protecting our democracy, eh?” “Thats not who we are as amer…i mean canadians, eh?” Haha. Kamala is actually kind of endearing in a Idiocracy kind of way.
IDIOCRACY Clip – State of the Union (2006) Terry Crews
The brain is a dynamic system.
As it grows (“develops”) we see how mylination forms.
Also embryos form differently when proteins have different shapes.
As I said my pain system of canoibinoid is different from just one allel.
And the thalamus exists as segmentations because of a protein is missing then features can be missing or from the allel grow in a different way from people with another allel.
So if part of the thalamus has grown bigger or smaller then the signals passing through it will make the cortex grow differences in thickness.
If parts of the brain are being used in different ways cortex and thalamus amygdala hippocampus basalgangilian. Then coordination has greater or lesser chance of forming semetrically. Like the body the brain of each person is different and can do different things.
It all comes down to growth. The brain grows as to the parts so those parts working together either do so effectively or ineffectively. But this can mean you have strengths and weaknesses.
That should not be hard to find in a scan, the ability to coordinate the dynamics of the system when solving problems. Seeing hearing perception of what goes together and working memory. Dyslexia is more visual ADD is executive we should and do see what is happening. Why people can do more or less.
The big hospitals spend millions studying this with machines that are high resolution by doctors with high intelligence. And such machines are going to become public. Look up Kernel the inferred headset. The are making it cheaper each year. With the software to find out how people operate.
All of this assumes that intelligence reduces to brain physiology—that’s reductionism. (You should read Will Uttal on neuroreductionism and then Markus Gabriel on neurocentrism. You’ll probably say some bullshit about “anal philosophy” because you’re ignorant. Because you don’t read.)
no, it only assumes if you have a brain that solves problems better then it will show up in the scans
again you define intelligence as nonphysical and that is the only reason you say intelligence and brains are not connected in any dynamic way
but go ahead and call me names again. you don’t care, your politics prevents you from saying my views have any validity.
Sounds like a mereological fallacy.
Jeez, this whole tariff fiasco with Canada and Mexico has been one giant Social IQ test.
If you thought Trump successfully strong-armed either country, you’re mentally retarded.
If you didn’t think the capitulation was inevitable, you’re mentally retarded.
Trump could strong arm them easily but neoliberals want the cheap labour in mexico too much.
I mean don’t get me wrong. I, like many others, wished the Canada and Mexico would’ve told Trump to suck a dick, but that just wasn’t in the cards. They rely on us as a trading partner too much. But that’s probably going to change after this. It’s so funny because the “conditions” Trump supposedly got them to give in to were stuff they already planned to do and had done back in Biden’s administration without the threat of economic warfare.
That of course doesn’t mean Trump’s cult isn’t going to go, “oh wow our daddy is so big and tough, gawk gawk gawk“
Alicia Keys and meghan Markle are the only 2 black women in history to be good looking. And theyre both mulattos.
Never saw a good looking pure black.
And they both love Oprah
Oprah shook them down for money.
Nope, but they grew up watching Oprah with their moms. She was appointment TV for DECADES. An entire generation of women was raised on her talk show, but for mixed race women the connection was especially deep, because while a lot of these mulatto girls had a white mother, it was Oprah who through the TV became the black mother they never had.
Here Keys appears on Oprah. Even though Keys has much more musical talent, Oprah has much more g:
Kemi and the King: Badenoch meets Charles at Buckingham Palace
Its very bizarre when the King is more left wing than the alleged left wing Labour prime minister. I guess its very hard to bribe the king to be neokliberal lol.
I actually quite like King Charles, speaking as a republican and hardcore Sinn Fein supporter.
Oprah is basically the female Al Sharpton. When will that get through to your head?
No but like all proud black men, Sharpton worships Oprah. He literally got down on his knees and bowed to her when they met at a recent party. He was joking around of course, but much truth is said in jest.
Oprah’s relationship with blacks is kind of like Thomas Sowell or indeed what Sidney Poitier would have today if he were still alive. Which is very sad….
The reason it is immoral is because blacks are violent [redacted by pp, 2025-02-04]
Millions of blacks have no history of violence. Although HBD tells us there are AVERAGE differences between races, treating everyone in a race as if they are the same is morally wrong.
We know that most blacks don’t offend due to ethnic-racial socialization which buffers the effects of weakened school bonds, so they don’t abuse substances and commit crime.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9473348/
Most male blacks do offend and are violent. Thats an empirical fact. Theres no point debating this because youre too religious to admit evolution.
What percentage? Do you know your facts? I think not.
Something like 80% of black men have been arrested.
uh no
“Nearly half of black males and almost 40 percent of white males in the U.S. are arrested by age 23, ”
https://www.albany.edu/news/45558.php
I said 80% of black men have been arrested.
That stat is men up to the age of 23. So im right. Maybe even underestimating.
It’s lies. ALL LIES!
One in five Black men born in 2001 is likely to be imprisoned at some point in their lifetime.
https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/mass-incarceration-trends/
Your verbal comprehension is toddler level you know that? I said arrested.
Convictions even for something in your face like murder is less than 50% of the time dumbass. Most crimes are never caught.
The arrest rate is the closest thing youll get to a proxy of beloved’s behaviour.
We both know if blacks were actually caught for every bad behavioir 90% of blacks would be in jail.
Convictions even for something in your face like murder is less than 50% of the time dumbass. Most crimes are never caught.
I know but I couldn’t find a precise fit for your claim. And it depends what they mean by imprisoned. Do they mean sentenced to prison time by a judge or do they mean anyone who ever spent time in a jail cell which includes millions of people who never get convicted.
The arrest rate is the closest thing youll get to a proxy of beloved’s behaviour.
Hilarious how you call blacks Beloved when that’s literally the name of the Toni Morrison book Oprah adapted into a movie staring herself or maybe that’s why you chose it:
We both know if blacks were actually caught for every bad behavioir 90% of blacks would be in jail.
And probably 65% of whites would. Both would be criminal compared to East Asians & South Asians
rr once said he had “correctly” identified me
this was his mistake
because his politics needs people he can misrepresent.
discrediting people has always been used in politics to further agendas: look at this guy, he’s bad so what he believes is bad and not true and we are going to tell you what he believes even if it is a bunch of lies.
This was rr’s approach
Find easy targets he could use show how they were wrong because bad and what rr was saying was true because look at that bad person.
He did not actually care what they believed as long as they could be manipulated to look bad.
Its called pwning in gaming.
target weak players
to raise your stats
Blah bblah blah. Did you read Baverstock yet?
Nobody here reads hebrew dumbass.
^Lol. It’s true, engaging in most modern jewish-influenced media is like poison to my gentile brain.
It should be easy to refute Baverstock’s argument then.
Enlighten me though—how is it “Jewish” to talk about context-dependency and no privileged level of causation in biological systems?
The inquisitions was harsh on Jews
“don’t convert me bro”
was not an optimum strategy
no cats in America
Imagine if Biden had George Soros doing what Elon is doing right now.
STILL WAITING!!!
Why is there such a deep right-wing bias in MSM?
I unironically love AOC. Like I said we need to vote as Blue and young as possible.
Shes good looking
Elon Musk just pressured the CEO of reddit to ban r/whitepeopletwitter for doxxing his doge workers. And it worked. They’re gone for 72 hours. These people [redacted by pp, 2025-02-04]
Imagine the autistic screeching from you faggots if it was Biden and George Soros.
STILL WAITING
They don’t care because unlike Soros, Elon is white which in their eyes gives him the right to interfere in any country.
whitepypotwitter is a disgusting anti-White subreddit. It’s no different than BigChungus and all the other parts of the internet and world that were changed/banned due to wokism.
Imagine calling people who DON’T believe in communism and blank slatism autistic. It’s actually autistic people who put themselves in those boxes and base their society around them because they have no connection to the metaphysical.
You’re such a brainwashed dumbass.
You literally watching fascism unfold before your eyes and all you can do is say retarded shit like this.
Oh yeah Melo, I feel really bad some assholes have private information instead of some other government assholes. That’s really scary.
This whole time there was more of a balance of power and federal workers worked for our best interests… they weren’t selfish, bought by corporations and foreign governments.
If Soros ran the government it would actually improve the lives of 99% of the population. Soros wouldn’t run it to make money off it like Elon. Also the state department and defence budget would be cut by 70% making America and the world safer. You could even argue financial regulation and white collar policing would be much stronger e.g. IRS, Justice Department Anti-trust, etc.
So basically I would welcome any president putting Soros in charge.
If some tech people or bureaucrats are a bunch of cowards who capitulate to a little pressure from Elon or whoever, they kind of deserve what they get. This is the world they created… literally.
The most likely big threat with Elon/Trump abusing their power will be using it to battle anti-semitism for neocons. Now that is truly frightening. But it’s been happening for a long time anyway.
Elons relationship with the neocons is very complicated, as is Trumps.
Wow, Trump just gave Israel everything they ever wanted on a silver platter. Bibi can’t believe his good luck. If Trump did not exist Israel would have to have to genetically engineer him.
https://x.com/AmoneyResists/status/1886930397058965849
Its complicated.
Kamala is such a retard she might physically have went to Gaza to kick out palestinians herself.