Since commenter Mugabe keeps mentioning Bermuda as though this tiny island debunks over 100 years of HBD research, I thought it would be a good time to revisit the discussion Mugabe had on this topic with Lion of the Blogosphere. Original discussion can be found here. Note Mugabe is posting under the name “ron burgundy”:
Pumpkin Person 
At her peak my mom was like IQ 100 now she is maybe 90 – I was 125 when 12 now I might be 110
I agree that environment is important to whether IQ goes up or down so much that it cancels out what we can know about genes at the individual level and group level. Testing my IQ at twelve then plugging the numbers will mean that the genes will fudge the data up a bit and over vast numbers of people the genes might not be found whether they ad or subtract from intelligence.
Mug said that Jamaica highly invests in its runner’s. But did you know a bobsled team completed in the winter Olympics? The runners accidentally tripped and decided to go to the winter Olympics as it was all that was available to complete in.
So if you do give food and water to people that suits them they will be healthier expesially if the doctors are good nutritionists. In France they eat 9 big plates a day for the tour de force and they get paid to do it.
as to intelligence genes can play a role in metabolic processes but most people are malnourished so finding gene for high functioning is spread to thin maybe.
blood tests if you are rich can increase intelligence by seeing where you are deficient. It is not impossible I could go back to 125 or that samples could not tell me what foods to eat and go higher but if my genes as associated with low IQ because of trauma, that messes up the numbers.
mug is also right that human brains have limitations. Even if I had good capillary density and growth factors in memory, I still would need architectural restructuring to do things beyond human. I would not be a savant at all things.
Practically beyond 180 seems impossible. Because of the combinatorics involved getting exponentially huge barriers at play. You would never be able to breed a population that high like above 9 foot tall men and women cannot be bred and be a stable population. Intelligence has some gene environment disconnect where you are not going to clone Ed Witten (quantum physicist) and get the same result. Stochastic barriers exist.
It seem that in order to get a masters degree you need a whole lot of maths.
A library book for master courses you need to take is way beyond the SAT or the GMAT – those are peanuts to what I found.
I would assume you need to know even more for a PhD and more for a postdoc.
tho I get that math not hard for some people I don’t think it is trivial to say it requires higher intelligence to be fluent in it than most subjects.
last time I checked a masters degree in a hard field requires 127 and a PhD at 140 – because of the time frame when you enter and graduate. (Completing it fast and Not dropping out)
i don’t like to think 119 as PhD level because of inflation in low standards. Math should be the standard and what I found the top ten percent of the population cannot do in 8 years. 127 is 1 in 30
one problem in the book is to show how vector fields can be used to incorporate analysis of functions using transforms – basically that means using a high dimensional matrix to see if things line up when you use a function, and it goes deeper. What effect does one function have on another by the same method.
i saw a GMAT study guide at the library and it was not the same as this.
Thomas A. Garrity
All the math you missed
(but need to know for graduates school)
second edition
–
i had trouble with fractions and stuff
long division is hard for me to do without mistakes
i took a basics class at the community college in 2017
but I felt I could not do better
mug might know that he has good arithmetic skills because of the partial frontal connection in the Left hemisphere.
I used to draw diagrams from a young age. Could not program the computer tho
I’m very very disappointed a person with 2 STEM degrees believes in the blank slate. I thought IQ made a difference but clearly it doesnt matter. It reminds me of my local GP Dr. D who is the only other person in the town that agreed with me that jews run everything. FYI to study medicine in Ireland you need a top 1% IQ. Dr. D also visits the vatican and is a hardcore catholic. Its mystifying.
And then you have puppy. 20 years of studying psychology and psychometrics. Talking with Rushton. And he believes in the Blank Slate with astericks. Ridiculous.
Theres no hope for gentiles. Theyll just keep getting fooled.
“I wage war on this theologian instinct: I have found traces of it everywhere. Anyone with theologian blood in his veins will approach things with a warped and deceitful attitude. This gives rise to a pathos that calls itself faith: turning a blind eye to yourself once and for all, so you do not have to stomach the sight of incurable mendacity.”
^^
Q: Is this me or Neithszhe?
I’m very very disappointed a person with 2 STEM degrees believes in the blank slate.
It’s because he has such utter disgust and hatred for what Due Dissidence calls the peasant mind (and what Marx called false consciousness) that he can’t be rational when it comes to HBD. His disgust for anti-Marxists overwhelms his respect for the truth.
From now on I might just only post Neitsczhe quotes to wake the whole comment section out of its slumber.
“In the later part of his creative life Nietzsche suffered acutely from loneliness. Like his alter ego, Zarathustra, he found himself alone on a (Swiss) mountain top. But, intellectually at least, he accepted this condition. Since, he reasoned, a radical social critic, a ‘free spirit’ such as himself, sets himself ever more in opposition to the foundational agreements on which social life depends, he reduces the pool of possible comrades, and so of possible friends, to vanishing point”
After Jimmy, Im the only rational person left. Very sad. Very very sad.
lol. Jimmy didn’t believe in HBD either. He thought it was a cult. And he did not consider you rational, I’m sorry.
LOL jimmy believed in hbd more than even I did
The core problem with RR, Mugabe, Puppy, Melo and so on is …not IQ. I realise that now.
Its not autism either.
Its religion. They came into the religion while they were children and couldn’t find a way out of the ashkenazim hall of mirrors. Very sad.
Actually the analogy with religion is very apt, because what is religion? As Ed Dutton argues, religion is a belief system that advances your genetic interests (Genesis 128: be fruitful and multiply). It’s not in their genetic interest to believe Jews and rich people are genetically smarter than proles and minorities, so they reject HBD. They’re just being good Marxists which, you as a libertarian puppet for the ruling class can’t understand. It’s in Lion’s genetic interest to believe in HBD because his group is near the top, so he doesn’t have to deny reality in this case.
You are the one constantly arguing billionaires are genetic superiors. I constantly argue theyre not. Read your own comments.
Which is why I didn’t include myself among the religious people on the blog.
Youre worse than religious in that sense. More of a sychophant or an outright puppet.
As a Marxist, I’ve been sychophantic towards billionaires from an underdog background, especially those in entertainment who made their money through wages. As a libertarian, you’re sychophantic towards billionaires from the ruling class of their respective countries (Zionists in America who got rich in finance, White South Africans like Elon Musk who got rich by buying the means of production) and have nothing but disdain for the racial underclass.
PP what makes you a Marxist?
My belief in Marxism
You should write something on what you think Marxist HBD is.
class warfare is bad
people die in wars
I thought you were going to actually analyze the claims yourself.
Idk about bermuda/barbados or whatever, but I do know that Mugabe is one of the only people on this blog that understands how phenotypic expression actually works.
And let’s be real, saying HBD is backed by over 100 years of “research” is being generous. My evidence? Literally everything Me, RR, Afro, Swank, or Mugabe have said the entire existence of this blog.
you think rr believes that genes play a role in phenotype?
i said many many times without genes you cannot have growth in the brain. Every time I did rr denied it.
rr cannot handle the fact that proteins can effect how brains function. (a slight difference in shape (because of the allele) have profound consequences)
it don’t matter what expression happens but that the allele creates proteins that worsen or enhances intelligence
you and him think I am a moron
Exactly, RR has no coherent model. He points out that the whole system develops together and that genes do not necessarily cause different developmental traits if other structures can cause them, nor can specific genes always be traced to specific development. He doesn’t actually explain anything in detail. For him, genes and development/inheritance are “?”, unexplained. (And action potentials being related to the mind-body connection as a physical correlate)
Please learn when to use “effect/affect.” Muh low IQ.
“you think rr believes that genes play a role in phenotype?”
As necessary, not sufficient, causes. I’ve been saying this for years. But then you go off on your idiotic and wordy (read: irrelevant) nothings to try to refute what I said but it never sticks. Learn the difference between “necessary” and “sufficient” causation.
The “protein shapes” autism is a particularly funny attempt to disprove the argument against hereditarianism from developmental systems.
How does “necessary but not sufficient” disprove intelligence?
you never explained this
brains are physical so a better functioning brain is more intelligent, that is why proteins shapes are important to disproving non physical intelligence you dick
you are just to stupid to understand intelligence as a “developmental system” requires the physical
calling this autism is like pill calling non racism autism
both stupid
as long as intelligence is physical then nothing I say is irrelevant.
dicks like rr are trolls
“How does “necessary but not sufficient” disprove intelligence?”
How is that implied? “necessary but not sufficient” refers to the role of the gene in the developmental system.
“that is why proteins shapes are important to disproving non physical intelligence”
Huh?
“you are just to stupid to understand intelligence as a “developmental system” requires the physical”
“necessary, but not sufficient”
“as long as intelligence is physical then nothing I say is irrelevant.”
Psychological traits aren’t physical.
“psychological traits aren’t physical”
this is wrong for many reasons
there would be no interaction with the real world back and forth, no reinforcement learning
thinking about the real world would not happen where people all had the same abilities to solve problems (anyone could draw anything)(no one could chunk bigger patterns than anyone else)
you would not need a brain to think or store memory thus you would not need atoms or energy to arrange themselves, only platonic heave would exist
for decisions making and perception to work good you need brain chemistry to work good.
thus
protein shapes = better or worse intelligence
nonphysical stuff won’t do that, all physical reality impacts brain chemistry
How does all of that follow?
what do you mean?
your smart, you should understand
How does that not follow on the assumption that psychological traits aren’t physical?
because you cannot define intelligence as something you can will to be higher than physically possible
the ability of intelligence is not unlimited therefore has physical limitations
(chunking a number of patterns at the same time into memory (memory being physical))
“because you cannot define intelligence as something you can will to be higher than physically possible”
What’s the argument?
you think an individual mind can do anything?
ok
that’s on you buddy
it is because the brain is physical (genes are physical) so whenever I say protein shapes can enhance or decrease brains in functioning thus intelligence rr can deny it.
also, if you are a stupid dumb fuck
no I don’t deny reaction norms
But those involve proteins having different shapes.
you don’t have reaction norms without the proteins having differences.
both in composition (the amino acids the are made of) and the order they come in (the allele codon sequence)
this is why the shape of the electromagnetic field of the protein function the way they do in the cell.
this is what happens when I state basic facts
anime: 1+1=2
rr: what’s the argument
anime: the argument is that your too stupid to understand so go fuck yourself
melo: you don’t understand rr’s views
^Melo is the type of nigga to state “people don’t understand X” more than actually explain anything (nontrivial). RR explains but he does it with a wall of text.
Mugabe says things people may or may not have already known in a way as if he’s dropping esoteric, intuition-maxxed knowledge and is convinced everyone is a jew/autist unless they are like him (aka LOADED)
Do people here even care that a protein is a enzyme catalyst?
thus catalytic reactions can be faster or slower depending on the difference in shape?
god damn stupid people
(angry face)
Explain at all which part he’s correct that isn’t already factored into a reasonable hereditarian’s analysis. (like me or PP)
it takes spatial Intelligence to see how physics, chemistry, biology and intelligence related to each other.
something rr and melo either don’t have or they are just trolling so don’t listen
Cave man logic :
counting bad
math bad
We need to lie about it with “philosophy” to show it is bad.
basically intelligence as a reality have been obscured by them so much by their convoluted logic that they created a whole system of why it is not real.
genes don’t really effect anything physical i.e. phenotype
brains cannot function better than other brains
evolution is not true
on and on and on
Idk about bermuda/barbados or whatever, but I do know that Mugabe is one of the only people on this blog that understands how phenotypic expression actually works.
Mug of Pee believes IQ is like fat where person A is fatter than person B if reared in environment A but leaner if reared in environment B. HBDers believe IQ is like height where person A is taller than person B regardless of whether they were raised in environment A or B.
if you eat nothing but McDonald’s cheese burgers for a month you might not survive unless you are adapted to that food source
if I exercise I can eat fast food every day and not be overweight, not like some people.
But food is not the problem, it is nutrition.
the sumo wrestling people mug talks about 500 pounds, they don’t die of diabetes like some people do at 120 pounds.
a cap exists on intelligence not just because of genes.
but when you look at the metabolism of brains.
if you decrease inflammation then IQ goes up, reduced virus load, detox
you meditate correctly
iq goes up
Neuro/biofeedback really big gains in IQ
its all physical processes where you can get brains to function like the rest of the body functions.
the liver can work better if you go out into the sun
brains need magnesium vitamin C, D3 and K2 zinc Omega 3 collagen colloidal silver
vision training and sound training is good too
expanded awareness training
(metabolism)
I might be misunderstanding what you mean but person A could definitely be shorter than person B if their environment lead to malnourishment.
Let me be more specific. In virtually every environment, from Third World famines to First World abundance, men have been taller than women, so it seems safe to say, categorically, that men are genetically taller than women.
On the other hand, tarahumara Americans are much fatter on average than White Americans. If we did a transracial adoption study, we’d find that even if they were raised in white homes from birth, they’d still be much fatter than whites raised in those same white homes. Further, we might find that even if white Americans were raised in Tarahumara American homes, the Tarahumara would still be much fatter. We might conclude that the Tarahumara-White fat gap is 100% genetic, but we’d be wrong, because if you raised both whites and Tarahumara in the canyons of Mexico, suddenly the fat gap would vanish and possibly even reverse, so unlike the male-female adult height gap, this gap was never genetic in any meaningful sense because it was a gene environment interaction.
“reaction norms”
basically growth patterns because of protein enzymes
melo: noooo… This cannot effect intelligence because intelligence is non physical shit..
What makes brains function better or worse in different environments then?
Melo: not genes, noo…
so environment is doing something that makes organisms grow without genes involvement?
you are telling me we can condition anything to become anything biologically somehow.
melo: yes derp derp, Rupert sheldrake morphogenisis banned Ted talk.
i see
newage crystal stuff to transform them from what they are into something else with bio frequencys
melo: yephes
ok guy you are smart, have a banana
Melo: banana evolution never happened derp
ok then what about a twinky
melo: twinky defense is best defense ever.
(insert movie trailer for MILK)
–
Anime says
my limit has been reached
i am begin to believe in bio frequencys
for real 😺
Imagine thinking that Melo and I have 1:1 believes on these things.
both of you are trolls so you don’t need to agree 100%
you just need to troll people stating basic facts as dicks
LOL. A lot of people forget that you and I intensely debated for years on this blog.
I know right? We went at it for at least 6 years on numerous different topics. Jeremy should know since he’d an OG like you and I.
rr,
you never read anything I say, why would I read stuff you said when I had issues back then. Pill calling me autistic all the time. You are the new bully.
you need me as a target for anti-hbd even if I don’t know what he fuck you are talking about. Making up lies about me.
i came here to discuss IQ and you want to target me for no reason
I guess you were always evil
^ gibberish.
then stop saying I am hbd
Do you think genes are sufficient causes for the phenotype?
what is a phenotype to you, I will tell you it is not taxonomy but a metabolism
Yes or no?
what will you say if I say yes or no?
you are trying to trap me
i can feel it
Just answer the question.
PP,
Do you have any thoughts to share about the CAIT?
It was (like your PAIS, I guess,) created and normed with the aim of implementing a free and rigorous online analogue to the WAIS.
It is, as I understand it, managed by armchair internet psychometricians.
What about the BRGHT (BRGHT.org)? This one seems more like an online analogue to the Wonderlic, in that it markets itself as a for-profit hiring and interviewing tool.
I don’t know enough about them to have an educated opinion. I did hear someone was creating a PAIRS test which sounded like it was inspired by my PAIRS test but I was never able to see the test to see how similar they were. My PAIRS test appears to lack construct validity (too subjective) so I’m replacing it with something else.
23 and Me is filing for bankruptcy. Now, why would they do that when they have millions of genomes and—supposedly—GWAS works? Hmm strange… Jeremy is on the case.
i address these concepts in the first comment asshole
Where?
I thought you could read.
–
“blood tests if you are rich can increase intelligence by seeing where you are deficient. It is not impossible I could go back to 125 or that samples could not tell me what foods to eat and go higher but if my genes as associated with low IQ because of trauma, that messes up the numbers.”
Where does test/item exposure fall there?
no single item on IQ tests is associated with a single gene
thinking that would be stupid
if I were to design an IQ test it would have aspects as to how many chunks you can intake into memory and how fast. And use this to see what problems they could solve. Verbal spatial mechanical and memory.
this may fit a standard bell curve or not
(a 1 in x score)
but some would be better or worse than an average
Just like in video games
id have a EEG brain scan system in the test as well
That doesn’t answer the question. Think about it for a bit.
exposure to test item doesn’t happen unless the kids parents cheat on the IQ test.
if the kid cheats then they are smarter than the IQ test
Adults who cheat, they probably can’t.
i took the wais 4 about 3 times and I scored lower each time.
i cannot remember more than 5 numbers in a row
average is 7
practice effect doesn’t exist
You’re smoking that good shit.
Why do you think I mean exposure to the literal test item and not just the knowledge and skills to take the test?
Cat in your own words, explain what you think “necessary but insufficient” means in reference to genes?
alleles create most of the differences in proteins
you must believe differences exist before you can understand how they effect body and brain metabolism
It just means that genes—like all other developmental resources—are essential for the phenotype but what is sufficient is the whole developmental system and the interactions between resources that create the phenotype. The statement means that realization of the phenotype isn’t reducible to genes, refuting hereditarianism (since it’s a developmental view which hereditarians like Rushton, Jensen, and Gottfredson pay lip service to but don’t take it to its logical conclusion because it undermines their whole research programme).
^^gibberish^^
Can you explain which part is gibberish and how?
If it could be explained it wouldn’t be gibberish.
I mean you claimed that what I said is gibberish. But that’s merely the developmental systems view of Oyama and Noble (his biological relativity argument). So, do tell: which part is gibberish and why?
The part that assumes hereditarianism necessitates genes being sufficient.
How is that not a hereditarian view? Isn’t that the point of GWAS?
If X is gibberish, then X is X is incoherent. If X is incoherent, then X isn’t meaningful. So if X is gibberish then X isn’t meaningful.
So can you explain how anything I said isn’t meaningful in the context of the formation of the phenotype?
For genes to be sufficient means heritability would have to be 100% in every environment. Jensen believed it was 80% in American adults. By contrast blank slatists believe environment is sufficient.
What’s the argument that heritability (h2) means sufficiency? I don’t see any reason to believe that environment isn’t sufficient since Jensen’s default hypothesis.
Since Jensen’s default hypothesis is false *
rr,
You don’t understand why differences matter.
all you can do is call people names (HBD)
you still think a developmental system as to intelligence is non physical but in reality a resource is a physical thing.
either differences in proteins effect brain function or don’t
brain function is for intelligence or it’s not
a resource is physical or not
you say development is a nonphysical resource thus nothing physical is touching it, -> bogus
Where did I say that? Quote me where I said that last sentence. What do you understand about the irreducibility of development and the biological relativity argument? (Prediction: gibberish.)
Why can’t you answer the question?
rr: developmental resources are for intelligence
but intelligence is non physical you believe?
rr: yes
so a resource is non physical?
rr: no
then if you say development resources are for intelligence and physical but intelligence is non physical their must be some way they interact?
rr: what’s the argument?
you tell me, it’s your belief system
rr: ^gibberish
^Exactly, Jeremy. There is nothing in their stated belief system (at least RR’s) that implies any physical material is “necessary”. for intelligence, because they have no belief in physical necessity or space for intelligence.
“rr: developmental resources are for intelligence”
where did I say this?
“they have no belief in physical necessity or space for intelligence.”
What do you mean by this?
RR, I explained it a long time ago. Information needs a medium, information that is discernable needs a separate space to be stored (even temporarily). There’s no other possibility because space is automatically implied by two different things along the same dimension.
What’s the relevance to Jeremy’s comment? I mean, I have my own definition of intelligence that doesn’t fall under the usual hereditarian pitfalls. By “information” do you mean in genes?
I’ll say it again—genes are NECESSARY for traits but not SUFFICIENT for traits. Do you think that jives with what you said?
Your definition of intelligence would actually require some sort of spatial array either way.
If space = physical (and it does) then obviously it is related to Jeremy’s comment.
“I’ll say it again—genes are NECESSARY for traits but not SUFFICIENT for traits. Do you think that jives with what you said?”
We don’t know what is necessary for traits because we (the scientific community) don’t have a closed system of causality for physics and the mind. It is open to new forms of causation.
But yes, personally I agree with that. Empirically. However, as I’ve argued before, you can’t show that genes do not become automatically the deciding factor when it comes to the development of traits, because we don’t have a complete explanation of environment-gene interaction and development. Etc.
“Why can’t you answer the question?”
I don’t believe genes are separate from the rest of the cell, they exist inside the cell and serve a function.
the only reason you ask this question is to show people I agree with you that alleles don’t matter as to differences in cell metabolisms.
dna in the dust is a straw man
Melos communist word games are sad
“I don’t believe genes are separate from the rest of the cell, they exist inside the cell and serve a function.”
You’re almost there. Now read Susan Oyama, Ken Richardson and Denis Noble.
“dna in the dust is a straw man”
What’s really sad is how you can’t understand what Lewontin meant by this and you don’t understand the surrounding sentences that give it the context.
a.i. is not even that hard to make.
all you do is copy the top down mechanism of brains
it is the body that is the problem
very brittle, not much training data
in video game worlds it is easier but the amount of content you need to teach it is huge.
large language modeling is not 3D
a.i. then needs to be custom made
learning from mistakes is costly
so then a.i. will be more like a person which ethical consideration must be invested in.
Thinking as to taking objects in ones mental work space. I don’t know.
i am below average.
i need to sit in front of the problem to work it out.
so like I cannot do calculus in my head like that one guy I know.
he doesn’t need pencil and paper
that is why I think my math IQ is 110
you need to take in a lot and compare that information to itself to work it out in a given time frame
in creativity you don’t need problems given to you, you just make stuff up continuously. People that use math are not looking at some formula calculation, they are getting to an answer by exploring possible math spaces. Like telling a story or designing a part for a machine.
they do it abstractly
in my head I sometimes come up with things but I get stuck often.
My mental workspace is small.
cannot write it on paper even.
i stare at it a long time
(the blank piece of paper)
Cmon Pumpkin, you really going to suggest that the vast majority of HBDers aren’t genetic determinists?
They’re genetic determinists in the sense that they believe heritability is high, but saying genes are sufficient is a very strong statement no elite academic would ever make unless they were exaggerating.
I was explicit in my argument in what I meant by “genetic determinism” and it’s entailment—that developmental plasticity is negligible, but we know it isn’t, so hereditarianism must be false. This then can circle to the Noble’s biological relativity argument, where genes aren’t privileged causes (which implies sufficiency and is an entailment of hereditarianism).
In theory developmental plasticity can be huge (if you were raised by wolves your IQ would be 100 points lower), but as long as typical IQ differences (individual & group) in the U.S. (which is where the debate occurred) are mostly caused by the genes, then hereditarianism is true. Honest reasonable people admit the verdict is still out.
See, that’s what I mean—the phrase “caused by genes” implies genes are SUFFICIENT for the trait to arise. Developmental plasticity is the potential for a genotype to express a different phenotype based on current environmental conditions. The mere fact of, for example, directed mutations throws hereditarianism out.
So what evidence exists that “typical IQ differences (individual & group) in the U.S.) are mostly caused by the genes? Twin, family, adoption studies and GWAS heritability estimates? 50 years later and it seems like hereditarians still can’t understand heritability.
No entirely caused by genes would imply sufficiency. Mostly caused does not. 50 years later environmentalists still can’t understand English
What? Even 1 percent “caused by” genes is “sufficient”—because causal power is given to genes that they just don’t have, as evidenced by the past 40 years of DST thinking.
If we went back in time to when you were an embryo & edited your DNA, your phenotype would be different. Thus genes have causal power which you’ve already admitted many times, you just make a weird anthropomorphized distinction between active or passive
Even then it’s incoherent to say there is a percentage of X and Y that cause traits (like heritability estimates claim to do).
If we went back in time & edited everyone’s DNA to be identical, then IQ variation would decline by X percent so why is it incoherent to say genes caused X percent of the variation?
Bold claim (and assumes what’s under contention—genes causing traits/variation in them).
And yea genes are passive, necessary causes but not active, sufficient causes (which is what hereditarianism entails in my view). And yea, it is incoherent to use h2 estimates to say trait T is X percent genetic and Y percent environment—interactionism kills those claims (much to the protestations of Gottfredson https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/08/18/the-interactionism-fallacy/).
I actually agree with Pumpkin here. This is like arguing with conservatives why “Black Lives Matter” does not mean “Only Black Lives Matter.”
Well yea, genes matter just like other resources. There’s just no CAUSAL privilege of genes in the formation of the phenotype, which I think throws hereditarianism out.
Whether or not Melo agrees with you, is always besides the point. He’s an NPC whose intellectual evulations don’t matter right now.
I agree with PP considering I said the same thing like 3 times already and RR just keeps repeating this strict genetic determinist = hereditarian. Which doesn’t make any sense since most hereditarians already agree that the environment both interacts with genes and the rest of the body is necessary for genes to do anything.
Anyway, one point is that at the quantum level, physics is probabilistic/uncertain. When converted to traits of the mind, this will obviously also lead to stochastic representation (and obviously, you can’t directly convert neurons into many types of consciousness. The best you can do is trigger it through them and find more specific correlates in different regions.) So it’s no question that genetics can never be one hundred percent deterministic of phenotype or mind, because no probabilistic set of values can be one hundred deterministic of one specific non-probabilistic outcome (of the mind, for example). The probabilities by definition map to a range of outputs, meaning, not one output, either of the physical result of something or a mental one.
Fine, so what does hereditarianism entail in your view? If what you’re saying is true, then why do Rushton and Jensen discount interactionism in their 2005 paper, writing:
“if gene–environment interactions make it impossible to disentangle causality and apportion variance, for pragmatic purposes that view is indistinguishable from the 100% culture-only program because it denies any potency to the genetic component proposed by hereditarians.“
“Denying potency to the genetic component proposed by hereditarians” is actually a main point of DST/biological relativity. For if genes aren’t privileged causes (genes must be privileged causes if hereditarianism is true), and the genesis of traits lies in the irreducible interactions between resources, then hereditarianism fails and interactionism (DST/biological relativity) is true and hereditarianism must be false. Because GxE DOES make it impossible to disentangle (genetic) causality and apportion variance. Also, h2 estimates don’t even take into account GxE. That’s the deathblow for hereditarianism (not discounting the conceptual and empirical issues of twin/family/adoption studies and GWAS).
Genes are privileged because when we control for genes, individual differences decline much more than when we control for environment which tells us genes play a bigger causal role. Now the genetic cause might be indirect, in the sense that good genes cause good environment which causes good IQ, but it’s causal nonetheless. Genes are privileged because people with high IQ genes can select high IQ environments, but people with high IQ environments can’t select high IQ genes. They’re stuck with what they’re born with. So H2 is probably a good measure of genetic causation, as long as people realize it can’t distinguish between direct causes (genes build a bigger brain) and indirect causes (genes cause you to attend university and the education improves your IQ score).
Post this one.
What’s the evidence for the first sentence? You’re relying on the twin, family and adoption studies along with GWAS, right? How is that evidence for the claim that genes are privileged? Heritability estimates don’t take into account interactions, right?
How is that evidence for the claim that genes are privileged?
I just told you how: when we control for genes, individual differences decline much more than when we control for environment which tells us genes play a bigger causal role.
Heritability estimates don’t take into account interactions, right?
The gene-environment interactions are caused by genes so count as indirect genetic causes.
Forgive me because I haven’t researched this shit in years at this point, but don’t some modern heritability estimates try and account for GXE in their models?
Possibly, but GXE has two different meanings:
Meaning 1: Reaction norms
Meaning 2: Genes/environment causing each other
“control for genes” how?
But heritability estimates don’t take into account interactions, right? That doesn’t answer the question. Again your phrasing “caused by genes” is saying genes are sufficient causes. There’s no reason to believe that.
What’s the argument that the G-E interactions are caused by genes? What, specifically, do you mean by “caused by genes” in this context?
“control for genes” how?
twin studies
But heritability estimates don’t take into account interactions, right?
Wrong
That doesn’t answer the question. Again your phrasing “caused by genes” is saying genes are sufficient causes.
You said that already. And I said sufficient means ONLY cause. Jensenism merely argues primary cause.
There’s no reason to believe that.
Which is why almost no one does.
What’s the argument that the G-E interactions are caused by genes? What, specifically, do you mean by “caused by genes” in this context?
People with high IQ genes end up in good environments but people with good environments don’t end up with good genes, so genes are causing the convergence of genes & environment
Post this one.
Which twin studies? Even after all of these years with all of the devestating criticism, you still hold those false beliefs about twin studies?
If genes aren’t sufficient causes then why do hereditarians use twin studies to point at the “effects” of genes? Why do hereditarians side-step interdependency, multi-level causation and the system-as-a-whole (the true sufficient cause)?
Suppose there can be no environmental effect without an biological organism to act on. Suppose that there can be no organism outside it’s context. Suppose the organism cannot exist without the environment. Finally, suppose that the environment has certain descriptive properties if, and only if, it is connected to an organism.
If there can be no environmental effect without a biological organism to act on, and if the organism cannot exist without the environment, then the organism and environment are interdependent. If the organism and environment are interdependent, and if the environment has certain descriptive properties if and only if it is connected to the organism, then nature and nurture are inseparable. Thus, nature and nurture are inseparable.
What are these “high IQ genes”? “These genes are high IQ genes because they’re found in people with high IQ”, right?
Which twin studies?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886924002113#s0125
Even after all of these years with all of the devestating criticism, you still hold those false beliefs about twin studies?
If they’re so flawed seems odd that (1) the classical twin study method (2) the MZ twins raised apart studies, and (3) the non-twin adoption studies, all tell the same story.
If genes aren’t sufficient causes then why do hereditarians use twin studies to point at the “effects” of genes?
Because effects != sufficient effects.
Why do hereditarians side-step interdependency, multi-level causation and the system-as-a-whole (the true sufficient cause)?
Just because two things are interdependent does not mean both contribute equally
If there can be no environmental effect without a biological organism to act on, and if the organism cannot exist without the environment, then the organism and environment are interdependent. If the organism and environment are interdependent, and if the environment has certain descriptive properties if and only if it is connected to the organism, then nature and nurture are inseparable. Thus, nature and nurture are inseparable.
They’re inseparable physically but not conceptually. Math is not bound by physical laws.
What are these “high IQ genes”? “These genes are high IQ genes because they’re found in people with high IQ”, right?
When phenotype correlates more with genetic similarity than with environmental similarity, high IQ genes are implied
Post this one.
So to be clear here the argument is: (supposed) genetic identity and (supposed) environmental variation equals G causes T if those who are genetically identical share similar trait values even after being treated in varied environments?
What’s the same story the CTM/non-twin adoption studies show?
My claim is that GWAS are carried out BECAUSE it is ASSUMED that genes are sufficient causes. But there is the disconnect between twin and molecular heritabilities, one that won’t be bridged.
Again, it seems like you’re claiming that we can partition traits into genetic and environmental influences—the standard of heritability estimates. But we know that’s flawed thinking.
What do you mean that they’re not separate conceptually?
And the phenotype correlates more with genetic similarity than environmental similarity based on… MZA studies, right?
Or is it, these genes are high IQ genes because they’re found in people with high IQ, people have high IQs because they have these genes. Sounds more like that to me. Because there is NO independent evidence, only your assumption which then leads to circular reasoning.
So to be clear here the argument is: (supposed) genetic identity and (supposed) environmental variation equals G causes T if those who are genetically identical share similar trait values even after being treated in varied environments?
Right
What’s the same story the CTM/non-twin adoption studies show?
MZ twins raised apart become more similar as they get older. Unrelated people raised together become LESS similar as they get older. In classical twin studies, the correlation between twins increases with age much more in MZ twins raised together than in DZ twins raised together. Finally, Flynn of all people has found that cognitive inequality increases with age as would be expected if genetic inequality & environmental inequality are joining forces. So we have FOUR INDEPENDENT lines of evidence all showing that from birth to adulthood, genes make environment their bitch.
My claim is that GWAS are carried out BECAUSE it is ASSUMED that genes are sufficient causes.
It’s sometimes assumed they are the causes of they just don’t care if the correlation is causal. But absolutely no one assumes they’re sufficient causes because that by definition would mean heritability is 100%. More sophisticated scientists will try to replicate their results within families or cross-culturally to buttress causation claims.
But there is the disconnect between twin and molecular heritabilities, one that won’t be bridged.
It’s been bridged by rare variants found in families
Again, it seems like you’re claiming that we can partition traits into genetic and environmental influences—the standard of heritability estimates. But we know that’s flawed thinking.
It’s only flawed thinking if you assume all causes are direct causes. If Tom punches Bill causing Bill to punch Tom causing Tom to punch Bill again causing Bill to punch Tom again, who caused most of the punches. In a direct sense they both caused an equal number but in an indirect sense, Tom caused all of them because he started the fight and Bill was just acting defensively. A court might find Tom entirely responsible.
Or is it, these genes are high IQ genes because they’re found in people with high IQ, people have high IQs because they have these genes. Sounds more like that to me. Because there is NO independent evidence, only your assumption which then leads to circular reasoning.
It’s not circular at all. We know a priori than MZ twins raised apart are virtually identical genetically and different environmentally so if their phenotypes end up way more alike than random people raised apart, genes are at least indirectly causal, at least within the range of environments studied.
Post this one.
“Right”
Why should that be an inference that we draw?
“MZ twins raised apart become more similar as they get older. Unrelated people raised together become LESS similar as they get older. In classical twin studies, the correlation between twins increases with age much more in MZ twins raised together than in DZ twins raised together. Finally, Flynn of all people has found that cognitive inequality increases with age as would be expected if genetic inequality & environmental inequality are joining forces. So we have FOUR INDEPENDENT lines of evidence all showing that from birth to adulthood, genes make environment their bitch.”
Based on… Heritability?
“by definition would mean heritability is 100%”
Doesn’t make sense at all. (How is “heritability” being used here?) Heritability assumes a linear, separable model of causation, but all levels of the system are interdependent, not independent, so the conclusion “X percent of Y due to G” doesn’t even make sense.
“[the disconnect between twin and molecular heritabilities has] been bridged by rare variants found in families”
You’re saying that rare variants explain all of the missing heritability from twin studies compared to adoption studies? Why do hereditarians continue to assume, using this model, that gene-environment interactions G and that, basically, there is NO interaction? I’m sure you could think of a few ways off the top of your head that would show how such interactions would skew—and invalidate—these estimates.
What about the factors in twin and adoption studies that skew results (eg unfounded assumptions)? Let’s face it—the death knell for GWAS has been here and even True Believers will claim that too.
Why should that be an inference that we draw?
Because that’s how scientists operationalize causation. We learned in 7th grade science that the only way to prove causation is to do an experiment where you hold one variable constant while allowing the other to vary.
Based on… Heritability?
Yes
Doesn’t make sense at all. (How is “heritability” being used here?) Heritability assumes a linear, separable model of causation,
Heritability studies are no different than any other experiment to infer causation. You hold one variable constant and allow the other to vary. Now if genetic effects are indirect then heritability can be misleading, but insisting that causation can only be inferred when it’s simple and direct seems a bit extreme.
You’re saying that rare variants explain all of the missing heritability from twin studies compared to adoption studies?
That’s what the scientists who did the rare variant study concluded. It’s possible they’re wrong of course, but anyone denying HBD needs to respond to their research if they want to be convincing.
Why do hereditarians continue to assume, using this model, that gene-environment interactions G and that, basically, there is NO interaction?
They assume there’s no interactions in the norms of reaction sense but many agree with you that it’s a dynamic system and an interdependent feedback loop.
I’m sure you could think of a few ways off the top of your head that would show how such interactions would skew—and invalidate—these estimates.
I would agree that saying IQ is heritable is not a very informative statement. We need to know WHY it’s heritable. Is it directly heritable like height or is it indirectly heritable like weight
What about the factors in twin and adoption studies that skew results (eg unfounded assumptions)?
Well the bulk of the research comes from classical twin studies and the main point of contention there is the equal environment assumption. Most HBDers will tell you it’s valid, though HBD deniers say it’s not. I haven’t studied the evidence closely enough to have an educated opinion either way.
No, that doesn’t work. CTM doesn’t actively vary G or E. It doesn’t hold E constant (EEA violation). E varies with G. So h2 can’t isolate G causing T.
(1) The classical twin method assumes that its heritability (h2) estimate (Falconer’s formula) isolates the proportion of phenotypic variance due solely to genetic variance.
(2) For the h2 estimate to isolate genetic variance, the shared environmental variance must be equal for MZ and DZ twins.
(3) MZ twins are more genetically similar than DZ twins.
(4) Genetic similarity between individuals leads to greater similarity in their expressed phenotypic traits, and this phenotypic similarity results in greater similarity in their environmental experiences.
(5) Because MZ twins have greater genetic similarity than DZ twins, and genetic similarity leads to phenotypic similarity, which in turn results in environmental similarity, the shared environmental variance is greater for MZ twins compared to DZ twins.
(6) If the shared environmental variance for MZ twins is greater than that for DZ twins, then the EEA is false because it requires that shared environmental variance be equal for both twin types.
(7) If the EEA is false, then we cannot logically infer genetic conclusions from h2, and thus h2 reflects shared environmental variance (c2), rather than genetic variance.
(8) Any method that relies on an assumption that’s logically inconsistent with the principles governing it’s variables – like the relationship between genetic similarity, environmental similarity and phenotypic similarity – cannot accurately isolate its intended causal component and is therefore conceptually untenable.
(9) Thus, the classical twin method is conceptually and logically untenable since it depends on the EEA which, when false, renders h2 a measure of environmental—not genetic—variance.
Can you link to the rare variant study? It seems like a huge claim that ALL of the so-called heritability is found through rare variants in families. Very bold claim.
If “many agree with you that it’s a dynamic system and an interdependent feedback loop”, then they wouldn’t use heritability estimates, because it undermines systems biology.
(1) Biological relativity holds that there is no privileged level of causation in biological systems: all levels (genes, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, environments) are interdependent in producing phenotypes.
(2) h2 assumes that genetic variance can be isolated and quantified as a distinct contributor to phenotypic variance.
(C) Since biological relativity rejects the isolation of genetic effects, h2 is conceptually invalid as a measure of genetic influence.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2025/03/31/why-heritability-estimates-are-flawed-a-conceptual-account/
“Why IQ is heritable” in the sense of 80 percent or whatever?
See the above argument about the EEA. Also read Jay Joseph’s work on the EEA. The EEA is obviously false but then twin researchers redefined it.
https://www.madinamerica.com/2024/09/the-long-disputed-science-of-twin-studies/
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2015.00062/full
(4) Genetic similarity between individuals leads to greater similarity in their expressed phenotypic traits, and this phenotypic similarity results in greater similarity in their environmental experiences.
Environmental similarity that is caused by genetic similarity, thus the phenotypic similarity is INDIRECTLY caused by genes.
(5) Because MZ twins have greater genetic similarity than DZ twins, and genetic similarity leads to phenotypic similarity, which in turn results in environmental similarity, the shared environmental variance is greater for MZ twins compared to DZ twins.
Again, environmental variance CAUSED by genetic variance, and thus an INDIRECT genetic effect
(6) If the shared environmental variance for MZ twins is greater than that for DZ twins, then the EEA is false because it requires that shared environmental variance be equal for both twin types.
It’s the genes that make the environments unequal so independently of genes the shared environments are equal.
If the EEA is false, then we cannot logically infer genetic conclusions from h2
That’s a pretty big “if”..
Can you link to the rare variant study? It seems like a huge claim that ALL of the so-called heritability is found through rare variants in families. Very bold claim.
If “many agree with you that it’s a dynamic system and an interdependent feedback loop”, then they wouldn’t use heritability estimates, because it undermines systems biology.
You believe that if causes are interdependent, their effects can’t be quantified. That’s a philosophical viewpoint not shared by everyone. In fact, hereditarians like Bouchard famously said it’s not nature vs nurture, it’s nature via nurture.
(1) Biological relativity holds that there is no privileged level of causation in biological systems: all levels (genes, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, environments) are interdependent in producing phenotypes.
Just because effects are interdependent does not necessarily mean their independent effects can’t be quantified statistically, it just means their DIRECT effects can’t be quantified. Now that in and of itself is a valid critique of HBD because direct effects are what most people think of when they hear that something is genetic.
I knew you would take issue with 4, 5, and 6.
(4, 5) You admitted that HBDers have direct—not indirect—genetic effects in mind in regard to the biological relativity argument against h2. My claim is that h2 estimates privilege genes by claiming to isolate genes from environmental context. If that is true, then it runs into the biological relativity argument.
Further, under biological relativity, there are NO independent effects of ANY of the resources—think of it as a dance between two people (genetic and non-genetic factors for the analogy). Hereditarians are claiming, in my view, that genes are independent effects of certain traits, so that would be like a person dancing alone. Since the dance between genetic and non-genetic resources needs the two for the dance to happen, then a claim of one person being able to do the dance that takes two people doesn’t work.
(6) “so independently of genes the shared environments are equal.”
How?
“That’s a pretty big “if”..”
“If” is used as a premise indicator. Even twin researchers have admitted that the EEA is false so they had to redefine it or even ignore it.
The point is, if the EEA is false then “h2” is really C2.
Hill et al’s estimates are inflated, too.
“You believe that if causes are interdependent, their effects can’t be quantified. That’s a philosophical viewpoint not shared by everyone. In fact, hereditarians like Bouchard famously said it’s not nature vs nurture, it’s nature via nurture.”
Yes the first sentence is true. Regarding Bouchard, what do you think “nature via nurture” means?
“Just because effects are interdependent does not necessarily mean their independent effects can’t be quantified statistically”
“Just because effects are interdependent does not necessarily mean their independent effects can’t be quantified statistically”
So you’re saying that although there are independent effects of genes that we can’t quantify the direct effects of genes on phenotype? That’s similar to an argument Gottfredson made in her 2009 “fallacies on IQ” paper, but I of course think it fails as well (Rushton and Jensen also made similar claims in their 2005 paper).
Do you take issue with the claim that heritability estimates assume that causes of T/variation in T are separable and that it is reductionist?
if it were that easy I would have agreed with rr a long time ago
cultural marxist word games are sad
they don’t understand physics or chemistry just word games (low spatial Intelligence)(verbal tilt)
I listened to the audio recording of Trump and Elon bitching about the stock price of Tesla, and it got me thinking that maybe Mugs is right. Maybe Trump is the one in charge; the audio reminded me of this scene here in The Batman
This could explain why they haven’t had a falling out yet. But idk if Trump actually has that level of self-control. We saw how easily Kamala trolled him on the debate stage it just dumbfounds me that their narcissism hasn’t collided at this point. Or maybe Elon is the one in charge and that audio was just Trump trying make his master happy?
what audio of Trump & Elon bitching? All I can find is a story of Vance claiming an audio of him insulting Elon is fake:
https://www.newsweek.com/jd-vance-elon-musk-leaked-audio-ai-misinformation-2049488
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP82gUxeK/
Yeah I keep hearing they’re fake, but idk how they would even know that tbh. AI has us cooked.
Nvm elon is definitely the master
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP82g8TD4/
I don’t take any Marxist with their false consciousness seriously until I see them defend the right to bear or possess weaponry for self defense. Otherwise, they’re basically jews who expect others to do their dirty work.
[redacted by pp, 2025-05-25] there should at least be some limitation for violent criminals.
The hell is that redacted for? Are you insane? What did you think that comment meant?
I’m starting to think Policy person thinks marxism is what that dickhead Rupert Murdoch says it is
What? [redacted by pp, 2025-03-26]
Puppy do you have any long term goal besides saving africa?
and then i realized that peepee and all of her personalities were mossad agents and i realized…
SAD! SAD! SAD! SAD! SAD! SAD! SAD! SAD! SAD! SAD! SAD! SAD! SAD! SAD! SAD! SAD! SAD! SAD! SAD! SAD! SAD! SAD! SAD! SAD! SAD! SAD! SAD! SAD! SAD! SAD! SAD! SAD!
SAD!
PP: I saw you in my dream last night.
Mugabe: was I drinking beer?
PP: Yes.
Mugabe: was I writing a comment on your website accusing anyone who does not have the same beliefs or way of approaching life as me, one of your personalities, autistic, low IQ, and/or a mossad agent?
PP: No, not in this dream.
Mugabe: then it wasn’t me
This ‘leak’ story is inside baseball. i cant figure it out. Jeff Goldberg is a gigantic neocon so why is he blowing his own access and throwing his ‘in’ Mike Waltz under the bus? Ana Kasparian kept saying something was really off about the story. I agree. Theres some angle I cant figure out. A neocon ‘journalist’ publishing on a yemen conversation. Just odd.
^^autism. If it leaked that Goldberg was texted top secret classified war plans and did not report it, his reputation would be ruined.
^^^AUTISM^^^
he could “report” it to those who’d leaked it. no one expects a journo to report anything “top secret” to the public.
peepee: OMG goldberg didn’t act like assange or ellsberg, his reputation is ruined!
NO! especially not among the scum who read The Atlantic.
autism is SAD!
If he hadn’t reported it Wolf Blitzer on CNN would have been:
“BREAKING NEWS! Did Jeffrey Goldberg cover up a MASSIVE security breach by the Trump administration that put a major military operation at risk.”
Mug of Pee is genetically inferior as proven by the fact that his childhood IQ was +2 SD but his family environment (raised by Harvard law) was +3.33 SD.
peepee: i have FULL-BLOWN AUTISM AND SOCIOPATHY as proven by the fact that i make shit up and then claim to know it.
mugabe: EXACTLY!
peepee: STFU! mick jagger is an american!
I made up nothing, though admittedly your childhood IQ was an estimate but one that was based on self-reported data.
OMG Wolf Blitzer on CNN!
And the other reason to report it is to damage Trump. Goldberg might like Trump’s extreme zionism but normal presidents are zionist enough without all the fascism, incompetence and white Christian nationalism.
Autism as usual. How would other people have found out he got access? So ridicilous your reasoning. You think he cares about journalist ethics??
Isnt it bad for a journalist to leak about national security in general? e.g. Assange.
What if Assange posted he was added to a signal chat. He would be executed for it. but goldberg is deep state so he gets a pass.
The only thing to figure out is why he threw Mike Waltz under the bus.
How would other people have found out he got access?
If they invited Golberg in, then how does Goldberg know they didn’t invite other journalists? If just one of them reports the breach, people will wonder why Golberg covered it up. He’d be persona non grata among the liberal elite.
So ridicilous your reasoning. You think he cares about journalist ethics??
He cares about being PERCEIVED as ethical, & he cares about taking Trump down.
Isnt it bad for a journalist to leak about national security in general? e.g. Assange.
The Trump admin is the one that leaked it. Golberg is just exposing them for doing so.
The only thing to figure out is why he threw Mike Waltz under the bus.
Trust me, that’s not the ONLY thing you can’t figure out. I could fill the grand canyon with stuff you can’t figure out. LOL!
Yeah its an IQ issue. You don’t understand anything.
Basically…
a leak would be from the person publishing ie. goldberg…not the people talking on signal. The fact he wasn’t punished like Assange shows its being coordinated, maybe with dems.
You dont even have basic intuition on how people think…If theres other journos on the group chat, nobody will expect anyone else to say anything in case of getting in trouble or losing access to info. The fact goldberg was willing to sacrifice access to a top security group chat is weird. Its common for real journalists to not say their ‘sources’. He could have done the same about the chat.
Basically as Ana says the situation is weird.
Notice the way none of your answers tried to answer why he did it. You just tried to rebut my analysis and failed miserably but didnt give an over arching reason. This is why you are totally useless as a political analyst beyond cranking on stat models of (clean) polling data.
a leak would be from the person publishing ie. goldberg…not the people talking on signal.
Moron, sending it to a journalist is the equivalent of publishing it.
You dont even have basic intuition on how people think…If theres other journos on the group chat, nobody will expect anyone else to say anything in case of getting in trouble or losing access to info. The fact goldberg was willing to sacrifice access to a top security group chat is weird. Its common for real journalists to not say their ‘sources’. He could have done the same about the chat.
You’re assuming he was added intentionally. No wonder you were fired from finance 15 times. You don’t even understand basic protocol of handling top secret information and what you’re supposed to do if accidentally given top secret information. You don’t do nothing. LOL!
But it could be that he was added because he’s their AIPAC babysitter and he’s trying to pretend he was added accidentally knowing the administration is too afraid of their Zionist masters to say the real reason Golberg was added.
Maybe it is coordinated in the sense that at first they thought Trump could be useful as fake opposition but he’s proven too utter utterly chaotic to World markets and the global World order that it’s time to take him down.
Basically as Ana says the situation is weird.
Interesting
You just dont get it. How many private chats, clubs and nationals security convos are Max boot, Rubin, Stephens etc part of? And they never blow their ‘in’ out of the water.
Its all very fishy.
Obviously, due to neurological issues, you think Goldberg should act like a real journalist as if he was a real journalist lol.
Look, its very weird. I can’t understand it. But you might be right that he was added by Waltz to babysit them by AIPAC. Thats an intelligent point.
So it makes it even weirder because why would he blow up a group rather than monitor it and try to influence it for his bretheren?
Moron, sending it to a journalist is the equivalent of publishing it.
Low VIQ. Read the definition of a leak. A leak has to be published not just mentioned to a journalist.
So it makes it even weirder because why would he blow up a group rather than monitor it and try to influence it for his bretheren?
Because they can just put in another group that will do what they want for Israel, but without the fascism, Christian white nationalism & market turmoil.
More generally the story shows some of trumps ‘advisors’ are close to the neocons because Miriam Adelson wanted them around trump. We all knew that.
Theres a gigantic contradiction there that I have alwayts predicted would mean the end of trump.
The neocons want to control foreign policy and trump is way too independent on it.
I would guess the neocons despise trump more than they hate leftists and even the alt right. You can see it in how they talk about him and their tv shows and articles about trump. Its rage.
did you know that mick jagger is an american?
did you know that putin once served the kgb in germany and therefore putin is a german?
Mug of Pee accused RR of not understanding polysemy but doesn’t understand it himself.
Oh this is a continuation of whether Einstein is an American hahaha.
Good ol puppy.
You know in a standard IQ test, they would accept the answer: Einstein is an american. This is a problem with IQ testing more than a problem with the concept of american. Puppy doesnt even understand the previous sentence.
He was American by law but not by heritage. Words are flexible things and must be inferred from their context, but pill & Mug are context blind. For example, if I said “you’re an animal” I’m referring to the animal kingdom of which humans are a part, but if I said “YOU’RE AN ANIMAL!!!!!” then I’m calling you a sub-human beast. Capiche?
Words are flexible. Concepts are not.
words are flexible enough to become different concepts in different contexts.
??
Puppy what is the difference between a label and a concept?
A concept is an abstraction; the intangible essence of something. A label is just what we call it.
I’ve never gotten myself a discount at Walmart by swapping one item’s concept with another’s
I love how I said I was a communist and now everybody is trying to act like they’ve been one too since the beginning.
Sad.
^Low IQ, autism, definitely delusional (genetically inferior)
PP,
Jews purportedly excel in verbal tasks and have spatial abilities on par with gentiles.
What does the success of Jews in physics, mathematics, and music tell us about the applicability of verbal ability in these areas?
A relationship between verbal and musical ability would not be unexpected, but it seems to me that spatial ability should be more important than verbal ability when dealing with physics or (albeit less so) mathematics.
^^^PEEPEE^^^
SAD!
^^^IDIOT^^^
Hanlon’s Razor; for those with low social IQs.
How many of you guys are incels?
Isn’t it funny that RR and I are the only people here who can get women and we’re also the smartest and least racist.
Wait Pumpkin weren’t you almost married?
yes
Sorry it didn’t work out brother. If it means anything, the fact that you’ve at least been engaged means that you’re genetically superior to most of your commentors.
I remember the post PP made about it.
“Sorry it didn’t work out brother. “
^No person worth receiving sympathy from says “brother”. Literal NPC and genetically inferior person.
If he’s your “brother”, hook him up with someone.
I thought you implied we were gay
I never said I was an incel. Isn’t RR only doing black women? Does that even count?
And Melo said he was 5’3.
Women are attracted to racists. More masculine than non black BLM supporters.
More masculine? Poast face, TP. Bet you have no beard and a weak jaw (and no hair).
Everyone knows racists are more masucline dumbass. Dont need a jewish study to prove it. Use your common sense.
It’s so fucking nice having long hair.
I get so much more attention now too.
“Everyone knows racists are more masucline dumbass. Dont need a jewish study to prove it. Use your common sense.”
I’m talking about you, dumbass. Poast face.
“It’s so fucking nice having long hair.
I get so much more attention now too.”
I know, right? I’ve had long hair for 20 years. I always get compliments on it.
The one before my current lady was Puerto Rican (white), before that was Sicilian, before that was just white (some Euro mix), before that black and Italian.
Happily married with a 3 yo son.
Actually melo accidentally brings up a great point that most jocks are racist. I can’t remember a BLM or a LGBT pride person being a masculine person. I might be wrong
When I was 21 I fell down the Red Pill rabbit hole for a little bit after I got out of a really bad relationship.
But as I’ve matured, I’ve realized that the only reason someone goes down that rabbit hole is because they lack the emotional maturity and self-awareness to accurately understand why their relationships fail.
I’ll be 29 this year and I realize the reason it didn’t work out wasn’t because of “hypergamy” and “branch-swinging” It’s because I was not emotionally mature enough to understand her needs and giver= her what she wanted. Moreover, I shouldn’t have even been in that relationship to begin with. It was toxic from the start, but I didn’t realize that because I was a 21-year-old trying to make something work that couldn’t work.
Empathy is such an important part of masculinity. Christian culture has completely fried young men’s brains into thinking that giving a shit about others means your weak and as a result it’s begun to affect the genome.
Sexual dimorphism has increased dramatically since the upper paleolithic.
We’ve gotten smarter in some respects but clearly, we’re also regressing in others.
“I’m so empathetic bro, I’m going to help you so hard!”
OK?
Lol, see what mean? Look at you, you’re seriously trying to make fun of me for having empathy like it’s a bad thing.
Your generation is so cucked and can’t take any sort of sincerity without physically cringing. It’s pathetic.
RR and I are bucking this trend by being high-T Alphas with long hair, empathy, and children.
From an evolutionary perspective, literally the only thing that matters is having kids.
Cool story… Q: Which racial groups (or genetic pool) have been shown to consistently produce the least intelligent and least empathetic human beings?
Q: Which political systems have been shown to produce the least empathetic and most selfish people?
Q: If in the future you desire, anyone can be anything due to genetic engineering, hormonal injections, surgeries etc., so who cares about what you’re saying?
Do you think at all? (I already know the answer)
peepee said she has no chirren and melo is peepee.
melo is peepee
Liar
melo is right. SSAs are the master race.
oprah has no chirren and “genetically superior” pipo have almost no chirren.
yet peepee doesn’t argue with melo.
because melo = peepee.
Oprah is genetically superior because she COULD have replicated lots of genes (by paying scientists to clone her or paying women to carry her replicated genes) or by nuking people who are genetically different from her, but truly superior people have free will & are not slaves to genetic interests.
“If in the future you desire, anyone can be anything due to genetic engineering”
Lol you guys can’t even handle someone wanting to be a different gender, what makes you think we’ll have genetic engineering?
peepee claims oprah has control over nuclear weapons because peepee is psychotic. sad.
I didn’t mean that literally; my point is rich people sadly have the power to prevent their genetic rivals from breeding which sadly is part of our evolutionary history (look at the brutal wars between chimps)
Wondering what the HBD explanation for this is?
https://x.com/SashaGusevPosts/status/1905739085618274697?t=tYdfa_w0sGcRWUlRptxYtg&s=19
https://theinfinitesimal.substack.com/p/how-population-stratification-led
When can we say “it’s over” for GWAS? (Prediction: GWAS True Believers will finally admit that the critics were right when a new “gene association tool” his the market, just like they admit that candidate gene studies were flawed when GWAS came into play…)
Dude, you’ve made this argument a thousand times & a thousand times I’ve asked how population stratification can explain near-perfect IQ vs PGS scores BETWEEN populations? Crickets…. wait a few weeks and then you repeat the population stratification argument.
Because that doesn’t refute the argument and assumes no portability problem, plus a host of other false hereditarian assumptions.
how population stratification can explain near-perfect IQ vs PGS scores BETWEEN populations?
that’s easy. you just made that up. and it’s THE OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH.
you literally can’t stop lying.
just like melo. coincidence?
SAD!
NE asians are genetically inferior to SSAs according to melo-tard.
crickets from peepee.
SAD!
you literally can’t stop lying.
How am I lying? See the chart on the right:
https://x.com/PumpkinPerson2/status/1905304632647123056/photo/1
NE asians are genetically inferior to SSAs according to melo-tard.
crickets from peepee.
That’s HIS opinion! I don’t agree with it, but God bless him for expressing it.
So, I don’t have kids, yet. We’re waiting until we’re a little more established in our careers. I’m making like 65k, right now she makes 55k, I want us both to be clearing at least 80k before we start having babies. So, right now I’m genetically inferior to RR.
She wants like 5. I told her let’s go with 2 and see what happens.
But RR’s kid looks nothing like him and neither will yours so how is that an evolutionary win? It’s a personal win and an emotional win, but not an evolutionary one. Your kids will be more genetically distant than you than 2 random members of the same ethnic group. You’re like the Neanderthals. Their genes are still around but they’ve gone extinct, only your genes wont even be around because after enough generations, your genes will be pushed 100% out by the thousands of other ancestors your descendants have.
But if you want kids you should start now. Mutations & fertility problems start sooner than expected & it takes a ton of energy which older people don’t have.
What are you talking about? Your kids will always be more genetically similar to you.
And believe it or not I look a lot like my mom. Just because my father’s brown skin and hair is dominant doesn’t mean everything else is.
And you’re a hereditarian, if my genes help my children express advantageous phenotypes, then those genes will keep getting passed on.
Life’s purpose is what you make of it, but if we’re talking evolutionary success, propagating your genes matters most.
Life’s purpose is what you make of it, but if we’re talking evolutionary success, propagating your genes matters most.
But the only reason we care about evolutionary success is because “survival of the fittest” in the non-circular sense. The selective conditions that made us human no longer operate
My kid and I share 50 percent of our DNA identically by descent which then results in a smaller genetic distance than between two random, unrelated people who share little to no IBD.
But the other 50% is largely very distant from you so the overall genetic distance would be high
How does that make sense when 50 percent IBD keeps us close (caps genetic distance at 0.5 per locus), and two random people share no IBD beyond the distant ancestry-related alleles and at minimum we share one allele per locus.
If I have alleles A and B and she has alleles C and D, then he could be AC. Him and I share A (first locus) but differ on the second (B vs C). So that’s a difference of one allele per locus. So the distance of 0.5 per locus is the maximum possible distance between him and I, assuming no overlap between my and her alleles (dubious).
But sharing a race gives a maximum genetic distance of 0.0085 per locus on average.
What’s the reasoning behind that?
The reasoning is any 2 random humans share 99.9% of their DNA.
So your kid’s genetic distance from you will be the average of your genetic distance from yourself (0%) and your genetic distance from his mother (which if she were a woman picked at random from the entire World would be 0.1%, but would be more or less than that depending on her population ancestry)
Is it because genetic diversity within race is 85 percent?
”Is it because genetic diversity within race is 85 percent?”
No. The reason a child’s genetic distance from one parent is half of the genetic distance between the two parents comes from how genetic inheritance works.
the rule applies even if the parents are extremely similar including family related.
it would be false (theoretically) only if parents were identifical.
I think it would be very good for you RR that you stop until you perfectly understand this logic, because it’s not useful to build so much knowledge on sand …. Even if it’s hard, it would be very beneficial.
same for my favorite Irish traveler.
So where does the “0.0085 genetic distance” come from? Excuse my ignorance. Seems like I need to brush up on this.
Steve Hsu said humans vary at only 1 in 1000 base pairs in the human genome (+/-15% for ethnicity). So members of the same ethnicity should differ at only around 0.85 per 1000 base pairs (15% less than random). Assuming U.S. blacks and Southern Italians differ at 1.15 (15% more than random), your kid and you should differ at 0.58 per 1000 (half of 1.15 since he has half your genes) but if his mother were Southern Italian, you’d differ at 0.43 (half of 0.85). Of course these numbers are all very rough since I don’t know the precise genetic distances off-hand.
What’s the upper and lower bound and what’s the reasoning behind it?
Detailed argument, and the 1 in 1000 base pair difference is true.
My kid and I share 50 percent of our DNA IBD. So random people of the same ethnicity share 0.85 percent of their DNA, so if my kid and I differ at 0.58 and per 1000 and or 0.43. So doesn’t that suggest that I’m closer to my kid than 2 randoms of the same ethnicity? (Are those typos with the 0.85 and 0.00085?)
So doesn’t that suggest that I’m closer to my kid than 2 randoms of the same ethnicity?
Yes, my statement to the contrary was probably wrong, at least if we go by Hsu’s +/15% assumption, but this professor says the most divergent humans are only 99.6% identical (though not sure who he means). See 10:45:
I would love to cook, RaceRealist and Pumpkin Person.
I would love to cook RaceRealist and Pumpkin Person.
Sentence 1 is 53 characters long, and sentence 2 is 52 characters long. I am not sure if divergence should be calculated as 1/52 or 1/53, but, either way, it is only about 0.02. These sentences are 98% similar! Now are you going to tell me that their meanings are 98% similar?
PP, I’m glad we could somewhat come to a resolution on this matter and not have it be a topic of discussion between us for the next 10 years like the hereditarianism debate will go.
Ganzir, interesting but small edits can shift a meaning but we are 99.9 percent alike, but my kid’s relatedness stays closer to me than randoms even if my woman’s race is different than mine.
Indeed. It was a productive exchange
White nationalists’ idea of making America great is making it more white, because if they actually wanted to make it great, they would invest in their people by funding national healthcare, free education, and science.
Its interesting that trump can now order universities around by messing with funding. Why havent presidents (or their boss) done this before? Why didn’t Rockefeller tell Nixon to defund anything not neoliberal? Maybe he did actually.
Anyways every single day Trump is expanding his powers to the point where congress and the courts are irrelevant. And hes just a game show host and failed business man.
Btw pill have you noticed you can tell someone is autistic just from looking at their face?
https://www.forbes.com/profile/peter-thiel/
John Travolta’s son had the same look:
https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.uPh4o6wDAqk9yAqqsEHGqwAAAA?rs=1&pid=ImgDetMain
Its a blank expression yeah
Peter Theil recently told Barry Weiss that America would be a lot better off if they just did everything Israel wanted because Israel isn’t crazy like the neocons. That is literally the most socially retarded thing any public figure has ever said. Now maybe he was just sucking up to Barry Weiss and her Zionist fans but I don’t think so, I think he believes it very strongly. The Zionists are extremely lucky that the only white gentiles rich enough to challenge them often made their money in autistic adjacent fields like high tech.
^^^LOW IQ AUTISM^^^
thiel is NOT a technical person. he’s just a money person.
the same is true of musk, despite what is claimed about him.
I didn’t say he was a technical person, I said he made his money in the autistic adjacent field of high tech.
thiel is also a hard-core pervert peepee.
so he probably get off on israel’s cock in his ass.
thiel and musk aren’t aberrations.
they’re what the system selects.
peepee: but to duh top naturally n shit
mugabe: but false consciousness n shit.
The putative correlation between success and autism might be an example of GXE; indeed Robert Lindsay noted that autistic billionaires are a historic aberration that has never before been seen. But you’re autistic if you think the correlation between IQ and success is GXE.
which is IRRELEVANT unless the field affects the money pipo.
why should it?
thiel had gone to STANFORD.
so it was a FIT.
It’s relevant because autism caused him to invest in tech instead of some other field.
peepee is the mother of melo’s chirren. and rr’s.
No I’m the sperm donor so that kids would have IQ genes. You’re the surrogate mother because your IQ is 100% environmental.
still waiting for rr and melo to get one degree.
still waiting for peepee to get one degree outside of her home shithole.
[ridiculous lies redacted by pp, 2025-05-31]
SAD!
HITLER AND THE NAZIS WERE JUST PUPPETS OF CAPITAL.
I had a bizarre interaction this afternoon, and I am curious to know what those with a social IQ higher than mine think of it.
I was at Subway, and the guy behind the counter was about to hand me my sandwich when he asked if I wanted it to be wrapped an extra time. I asked why I would want it to be wrapped an extra time, which I think is a perfectly legitimate question. I suppose he was implying that the sauce would make a mess if the sandwich were not wrapped an extra time, but, if so, why would he ask me instead of just doing it?
The guy behind me in line started loudly calling me an asshole and accusing me of knowing full well that I was an asshole. I tried explaining to him that I thought my question was perfectly reasonable because I did not know why I might or might not want my sandwich wrapped an extra time, and the fact that the employee asked me that question presupposes that there are reasons in favor of either option. He retorted that I should go outside and catch Pokémon.
I do not get it. Was I being an asshole? I put my change of about $9 in the tip jar in hopes of ensuring the people working there knew I was not trying to be mean to them.
In my humble opinion, your mistake was looking a gift horse in the mouth & then overexplaining. Should have just said sorry I misunderstood; thank you. But you handled it better than pill who would have just smashed a beer bottle over everyone’s head
He should have just wrapped it an extra time without asking you. (I’m of the opinion that if certain questions like that are asked then you should just do it anyway.) I don’t think you were being an asshole.
(Get sandwiches from a local spot that’s not Subway. Much better quality.)
Ganzir, my social clue is next to zero but at the same time everyone around me think I am very good with people.
in your place, I would have taken the question as an implied statement that he was providing you a complimentary service. Then asking about why is really bad, because it means why don’t you just do your job or are you fishing for money,
But as you gave him a big tip, it was exactly the good reaction and the guy probably understood you were a weirdoo that intended no harm.
my experience is that training myself to empathy – watching videos or putting myself in someone’s else mind – as made me very sensitive to people’s fate. There was a girl asking for money for the Red Cross in the street and a middle aged executive looking women pushed her with a horrible despising attitude. I spotted that and went to confort her and both ended up crying. The people around her couldn’t believe their eyes a giant like me were so empathic and we had a very nice exchange. If I can progress, everyone can 😊
e. Then asking about why is really bad, because it means why don’t you just do your job or are you fishing for money,
LOL!
You’ve progressed so much, you’re now called Brubo.
Has the kid been born yet?
born and baptized. It’s another boy. So I guess a third kid (and probably more …) is to be expected as my wife want to have at least one daughter and preferably two. I never thought I would have a big family. It probably comes from my wife side …
Congrats on the birth of the kid!
If one of the boys turns out to be trans, maybe there will be no need for more.
I just hope they won’t become Marine supporters :p
I will love them whatever they are ! They have a big far right environement on my side and progressive leftwing on my wife’s side. So they are exposed to sort of KKK (my grand father was a real WWII fighter in Russia in Reich 250 division) and BLM at the same time 😉
Is it really? I think that whether or not it is disrespectful to ask someone working for you why they are doing something is contextual. Say that a heart surgeon told me that he was going to perform a certain procedure in a certain way because if I do not have that procedure, I will die. In that case, it would be unproductive and perhaps gauche for me to ask why he would do it that way because he is a subject-matter expert and I know effectively nothing about heart surgery. However, if I asked for a description in layman’s terms of what was wrong with my heart, I think that would be reasonable, although possibly redundant since I would already have it on good authority that something is life-threateningly wrong. Do you think it would be bad if, in this scenario, I asked the heart surgeon to give me a brief description of what heart problem I had and what operation he would do to fix it?
The subtleties in communication, of course, matter. If, for example, you asked the question in such a way as to draw public attention to your interlocutor, and thereby shame him for asking, say, a *senseless* question, then yes. It may also be interpreted this way by an observer if one’s intent was merely to display one’s intellectual ability. That is, it’s sometimes seen as fashionable to play Socrates, so to speak, by asking superficially penetrating questions of commonplace dialogue in order to display to others one’s intellectual stance. In this case, one isn’t really being an asshole, just letting their pride get the best of them.
I think your question was fine but giving them 9 dollars was stupid. Don’t let the small people make you feel guilty for no reason.
He retorted that I should go outside and catch Pokémon.
One thing I do know for sure: the guy yelling at you definitely does not have autism.
Maybe they were and have internalized autismophobia.
I think the most autistic thing about my response was assuming that he was intelligent enough to understand what I was trying to explain to him. My interactions with people in this comment section should have taught me better.
With all due respect,* G, I’m positive that you’re familiar with Reddit and the practice of adding “/s” at the end of posts in order to indicate sarcasm. People do this because a lot of meaning can be lost in… transcription. That is, it’s not just <i>what<i/i> you say – your diction – but <i>how<i/i> you say it. Two people can say or ask the same thing verbatim, but <i>delivery<i/i> can make all the difference. I don’t doubt that your question came from a place of curiosity/puzzlement, but if you asked, for example, in an abrupt, robotic, or (ostensibly) challenging way, it could have made you look like a captious dork instead of a curious layman.
*Even if you master things like cadence, tone, pace, body language, and facial expression, mitigated language like this can preempt unintended offense (although using that exact phrase in that environment for that particular question might raise some eyebrows; it’s all about reading the room! “How might a normie who isn’t as analytical and no-nonsense as me misinterpret my bluntness?”)
I’ve put my foot in my mouth more than a few times, G – it’s a part of life – but at least I understand what went wrong. Your genuine bewilderment here, for someone of your intelligence, is… pathological. That’s not to discourage you. We can overcome deficits, and sincerely asking for feedback is an admirable step towards self-actualization.
where is my comment to [redacted by pp, 2025-04-09]
I decided not to publish it
it wasn’t harmful, i just decided to call him a robot because that’s the way he speaks.
If someone were fat, would you tell them that they’re fat? Is that a smart thing to do?
I’m not your enemy, man. I feel like I’ve been very nice to you for the most part despite your capricious behavior. I get that I called you a “megalomaniacal martyr,” or something years ago, but it’s remarkably abnormal behavior to repeatedly renounce yet return to this blog and to alternate between lamenting your life and claiming everyone but you is retarded. You’ll take on the slightest of slights or feel the tiniest bit underappreciated and become vindictive and act straight up mean.
I implore you to do some self-reflection and to work on not seeing everyone else as out to get you and believing that you’re somehow much better or much worse than other people. There’s more to life than navel-gazing and picking fights. It’ll take some legitimate practice, but you can do it.
when there’s an openly hostile conflict between people, sure. I don’t think Teffec and I are exactly hospitable to one another so i believe it’s not wrong.
if i were amicable with a person, then of course not. to me, it depends on context but it’s more of a matter of personal moral preferences.
i called Pill and others much worse and you published those because there’s open hostility between us. Pill calls me all types of things.
you’ve said i was schizophrenic, that was kind of mean.
Teffec, I find you a reasonable person. you do seem like a kind, genuine person as far as i can tell from our interactions. although we do engage in passive aggressivity to one another, i have no major resentment to you.
I value you, Teffec. you have the highest IQ on this blog and you’re a good guy. i hope we can become amicable from here on out and have decent relations with one another.
i remember you said you were almost a contestant on Jeopardy and other such achievements. I remember you commented nice things early on to my comments and gave me good feedback that no one else has here.
so yes, may i ask for your forgiveness? i didn’t mean you sounded like a robot all the time anyways, just that your sarcasm is a bit robotic in that specific commenting style. at least to me, i dunno.
anyways, hope to hear from you, pal!
Puppy is DEI on steroids. What is your view on race quotas puppy?
I oppose them
peepee pulling the ladder up after her. SAD!
btw, peepee supports DEI and affirmative action especially for negresses.
also btw, in practice all affirmative action becomes quotas.
because mentally retarded peepee will disagree.
SAD!
peepee pulling the ladder up after her. SAD!
yeah sad for you because you have nothing to climb.
A white man sings Tracy Chapman’s song and suddenly country fans are swooning!
Mug of Pee’s America = racism
But that contradicts your religious beliefs
IQ is relative
1 in x
So if you have pattern matching half can see the pattern is average or 100
The rest is simple afterwards:
1 in x people until you get to 200
Then no one can solve patterns above the top guy.
But it tells you nothing about how complex those patterns are.
Because 100 IQ is not defined by a complexity metric.
Yet we may be able to guess.
Marilyn Vos savant had a digit span of 21?
Elon musk is 140 and 7 is average
Every 5 points is 1 digit
But in the end that tells you a quantity of features to a pattern. Spatial visual you can have a bunch more. Perhaps cubed instead of linear.
Point being that some people can handle allot of pattern information.
Savant being 170 (1 in a million) on the test she took still might not be the same as a true 1 in x that high. I never seen the problems on the Titan test nor cooijmen test items. So I don’t know. It is just that 3D is not the same as sequential.
The book I have if you were 170 at 7 years old you could understand it, a masters degree in math, about a couple of days. You don’t need much to know to program computers like musk. You need to be 127 to do masters work tho so if Elon was 17 he would know what the math book is about real fast.
Just saying an absolute measure of intelligence is hard to figure out what that is. It needs to do with a quantity of patterns and not relatively between peoples abilities.
Well trump is about to blow up the world economy today. Should be exciting to watch.
Im looking at an advertisement on Linkedin for engineers to join a defence company. And the guy they have on the advertisement is a real engineer. You can tell because he is like a satirical version of what I say an autistic person looks like lol.
Without understanding the chemistry component DST is just as stupid as rr’s hereditarian straw man.
Prediction:
In less than a year rr is going to mention how chemistry relates to genes just like he did with feedback loops when I said they were important years before he did.
And the same for the brain.
It’s not a hereditarian strawman.
“In less than a year rr is going to mention how chemistry relates to genes just like he did with feedback loops when I said they were important years before he did.”
^^^ smoking that good shit because feedback and forward loops are inherent in DST/biological relativity. But you don’t know that because you don’t read, it’s been like a year and a half since I gave you those references and still, no response! Weird…
Anyway this debate is boring if you won’t accept certain truths about genes and their overall role in the developmental system.
Can you back that claim you made? (Prediction: no.)
Truths? You reject 99% of mainstream science. You need to be in a mental hospital such is your devotion to africa.
you won’t accept certain truth either. No response, weird.
like you have an agenda against me but won’t admit it.
I don’t trust you.
You keep “identifying” me as not accepting what you need me not to accept.
Asshole like you keep trying to prove I am racist when I am not so your not trust worthy.
its all a ploy on your part.
i can prove my beliefs but you cannot disprove them so the name calling and the racist stuff you need me to be. Jerk.
Systems biology is mainstream science, dumbass.
Here you go.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3262309/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381473482_ONLINE_COLLECTION_Focus_article_The_Gene_An_Appraisal
years ago I said loops were important but because rr is always trying to prove I am racist he rejected it.
anyone trying to prove people are racist when they are not is untrustworthy.
untrustworthy people like rr have agendas. They need you to be racist to reject anything you say is true.
Sure thing bro. You read those references yet?
mainstream science biology that doesn’t involve bio chemistry?
whatever
i know chemistry already
Can you quote where you think that’s said or even implied?
Because you reject it.
Your agenda therefore rejects it.
“proteins shapes is just an autistic way for you to prove HBD”
you believe I am racist because you associate my beliefs with HBD
your agenda is to discredit me with lies
you are a bully
Can you point out where I’ve denied biochemistry?
if a people doesn’t understand that regulation can change how extreme a persons can be intelligent or not
and they don’t understand how that connects to non-coding genes (the genes that regulate coding genes)
and that differences in regulation is the basis for this.
they are stupid or obstanant
“muh agenda stops me from understanding”
Sure bro
go ahead and “identify” me again
Brains cannot influence intelligence.
whatever, it’s not true
“if a people doesn’t understand that regulation can change how extreme a persons can be intelligent or not”
I guess your regulation is low. “a people doesn’t understand”
Go ahead and read those wealth of references I have you—which I can give to you again—and point out the flaws. (Prediction: You won’t.)
why read something that reject chemistry the way rr does.
because rr is dumb I suppose ?
how does it do that?
Because you said loops were “my favorite word”
You reject intelligence as physically possible by regulation of systems.
You’re talking as if “loops” aren’t inherent in biological relativity/DST.
“You reject intelligence as physically possible by regulation of systems.”
Can you unpack this? Systems are necessary for all parts of the organism.
Everything rr has done was to identify me as racist so people would reject everything I say.
That is how his mind works.
I had nothing to do with HBD. I simply visited this place to talk about intelligence, but because I did not agree 100% with rr I had to be identified and discredited.
My main belief is that chemistry effects the brains intelligence because intelligence is non physical.
so that is what rr needs to show is that anime is racist because he believes intelligence is physical.
that is rr’s goal
What? Where did I ever do that?
you reject everything thing I say on science.
that is proof you have an agenda against me
Can you answer me?
Why do you reject proteins have shapes.
Why do you identify me as HBD
Because of your agenda
post this one
“proteins shapes is just an autistic way for you to prove HBD”
you believe I am racist because you associate my beliefs with HBD
your agenda is to discredit me with lies
you are a bully
“Why do you reject proteins have shapes.”
Where did I say this?
“Why do you identify me as HBD”
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2023/04/24/the-distinction-between-psychological-and-racial-hereditarianism/
Puppy keeps saying he believes in evolution but when you ask him questions about it, basically hes like Mugabe and doesn’t believe in it. Also for religious reasons. But different religion.
I just believe the bulk of racial iq differences evolved before civilization. What’s so religious about that? At least I believe in Hbd which makes me less religious than most scientists
I wonder if there is data on upper paleolithic and LSA mortality rates?
Could be used to prove whether NS was stronger in Africa, vs Europe.
False. You dont believe any differences happened since we were cavemen. You said that.
RaceRealist,
Those articles had something to do with relatively of causation but why does that matter.
If you have no agenda against me then answer one question, if differences in chemical can change metabolism and genes can result chemical metabolism regulation changing, then why do you believe this doesn’t change intelligence physically?
You saying chemistry has nothing to do with better functioning of brains?
What do you mean by “better functioning”?
Im operating under this definition of intelligence: a socially embedded cognitive capacity—characterized by intentionality—that encompasses diverse abilities and is continually shaped by an individual’s cultural and social interactions.
Chemistry is one part of the system that is vital in making the capacity of INTELLIGENCE possible. Intelligence is a capacity to interact intentionally with the world within a sociocultural framework. Talking about the brain’s physical functioning means we need to talk about what supports the dynamic capacity. Basically, INTELLIGENCE is an emergent property. It doesn’t DEPEND ON brain states, but the chemistry/physiology is NECESSARY for the capacity to occur. Genes don’t program intelligence—they’re resources in a dance with other resources and the environmental context. Chemistry doesn’t determine brain function—it’s shaped by gene expression (which itself is shaped by environment/internal physiological environment among other things) and external inputs. The sociocultural context then channels this into intentional and meaningful action. (Look at my view of intelligence as one that relies on action theory.)
what the fuck
you are telling me that loops don’t matter again?
because any function the brain does requires those loops as a dynamic system too work well.
chemistry is particularly part of well working loops.
like muscles or lunges capillary formation
you don’t believe chemistry effects those either?
you don’t understand control theory or cybernetics in brain dynamics?
do you know what a reward function is?
why bother asking you anything then?
memory is functional if you can take in and process information but you think any kind of chemistry is conducive to the formation of dynamic memory looping?
oh my fucking God.
bless your heart
why bother why bother
i need aspirin
“you are telling me that loops don’t matter again?”
What makes you think that’s an entailment of my comment to you?
if loops are reductionist then you reject them.
“What makes you think that’s an entailment of my comment to you?”
saying that what I believe is reductionist entails that you believe loop processes are reductionist because I believe that and you said I was reductionist.
You don’t remember anything I say you just assume things about me.
You’re talking as if “loops” aren’t inherent in the framework I push. The point is no one level is PRIVILEGED over any other.
Yes ior no—are genes privileged (sufficient) causes, independently and over and above other resources?
you tell me because you don’t understand how they function in a system.
i have been saying for years how a system works as to what the genes do in that system but you keep calling it reductionist and hereditarian and all because you need to make assumptions about me to make me look bad as per your agenda.
you need me to be what I am not which is in line with bulling the guy who thinks intelligence exists.
So is that a yes or no? What genes “do” in the system is act as passive templates for the developmental system. Genes are special developmental resources over and above other resources.
I don’t see rr responding.
This is the facts:
RR has always treated me badly just like pill
He doesn’t care about the truth or matter of anything I say.
Bullies don’t care.
For years you can see everything rr has ever said to me as just a bully.
You will never see him refute anything true I say because you cannot refute a true thing anyone can see and call him out on.
This is the biggest truth: rr treated me poorly and I will never trust him.
“I don’t see rr responding.”
He literally just responded to you and answered your question.
Are you fucking retarded?
melo don’t understand that pp turned off the comments sometimes
targeting people you think are weaker than you is a sign of a bad person.
just because I was here
rr thought he could pick on me
(“your HBD blah blah”)
Anime: I believe intelligence involve brains.
rr: that’s racist
rr: I need to show him what for
–
bullies
are
the
worst
Lol, has RR ever actually called you racist?
No, but I have called him a hereditarian (anyone who knows me knows that I make a distinction between psychological hereditarianism and racial hereditarianism) and a reductionist.
melo is bully too
melo don’t understand that it is a lie that metabolism effecting intelligence is reductionist
lying about peoples beliefs is what people like rr do when you are the lowest of the low
its not about “brain states”
thats the straw man
it is about how dynamic memory loops can process more or less information
rr rejects that mentality challenged people exist and that geniusses exist
if they did he would have to explain why.
the reason is as I gave my answer (more and faster memory processing for the genius, less for the challenged person)
thats not “brain states”
its the organization of the dynamics.
but rr is dishonest and lies about my views
he rejects that dynamics organizing of the brain is effected by metabolism because if he accepts it he cannot lie about me being reductionist.
Please learn the difference between “effects/affects”, especially if you’re talking about intelligence.
Do you have any references? It’s hard trying to decode your word salad.
why do you need references when this is between what you believe and I believe.
You cannot refute anything I believe unless you lie about it with strawmen.
^^^ smoking that good shit because references matter, especially when your word salad hardly makes sense so I’d like to read some references. It hard for you to find references or something?
Why relatively of causation doesn’t disprove what anime is saying:
Chemicals can be different <irrefutable
Protein are chemicals <irrefutable
regulation changes when proteins are different <irrefutable
A brain can function better or worse when regulation changes <irrefutable
differences in proteins can enhance or interfere with regulation of brains <irrefutable
Some people have better regulation of brains because of the different proteins they have in their brains <irrefutable
–
activation of genes does not refute these facts
activation of genes does not refute that regulation can be better or worse
activation of genes does not refute that alleles are why the protein to that alleles can exist as different
relativity of causation doesn’t refute that sometimes people are more intelligent than others
only reaction norms can show that regulation changes in different environments.
reaction norms do not refute that regulation makes people more or less intelligent only that environment has an influence on what regulation does (intelligence is still physical because regulation is physical – acting on a physical system)
What do you mean by “regulation”? Is that a technical term?
metabolic loop formation processes cannot be refuted
Can you elaborate?
you don’t remember?
you need me to explain what metabolism is and loops and chemistry.
It is convenient you don’t remember anything I said.
Why relatively of causation doesn’t disprove what anime is saying:
just reread everything below that.
plus you said you understand loops and you keep saying “how do that entail me not believing that”.
do you understand loops or not?
what about chemistry feedback in the homeostasis of the cell?
I think you play dumb imon purpose.
and you say your not against me, bullshit, you don’t want your beliefs challenged but say thing against me i.e. hereditarian.
Yea “loops” are inherent in the argument. Relative causation disproves it on account of there being no privileged level of causation. “Loops” or chemistry feedback done, on their own, do anything.
What is your understanding of the biological relativity argument?
you did not explain it.
all I know is that you are against everything I say as a bully but you keep saying my beliefs have been right from the beginning?
why do that?
^^^ gibberish
Well, the tariffs are basically much higher than expected. Some of the tariff rates basically ban trade with certain countries.
rr has never explained why anime is wrong.
All he does is post spam Links.
so unless he lies about what I believe he cannot refute any of it.
he is too much of a coward to confront any of my true beliefs.
spam is not the answer
its what you do when you lose
rr is too stupid to have any real discussions.
wonder why?
because he then knows you cannot be fooled by his bull shit.
rr is afraid of those he cannot brainwash
so he bullies them
Did you read Baverstock yet?
Metabolic loop formation
You cannot refute it
“Did you read Baverstock yet?”
is that supposed to mean anything?
how does that refute my beliefs?
It’s a yes or no question. I’ll take it as a “no.”
Of course it means something. I’m referencing articles that back up what I’m saying. You’re not doing that, which I don’t find strange at all. You don’t know what “evidence” is.
why bully me so much about my beliefs on loops unless your against them, you cannot keep a straight face and tell me you haven’t been critical of my beliefs.
Did you read Baverstock yet? Want me to formalize one of the arguments in the paper for you or what? Why are you so allergic to read these references for the last 18 months?
Spam
Spam
Spam
Refute?
Refute?
Refute?
Argument?
Argument?
Argument?
That is all the robot rr can do.
Differences in protein regulation effect intelligence.
<irrefutable
And this is why.
Why no one tries to refute Anime directly.
just call him names n shit
they are afraid people will break free of the mind control
Affect*
I don’t even think anyone on this blog holds the views I have on intelligence, psychology, and race. Who am I brainwashing and mind-controlling?
all your blog is a brain washing project against the mechanics of the brain as to intelligence
Can you quote some sentences and/or passages that you believe could brainwash people?
Intelligence has mechanical effects not emotional affects.
Emotions has different mechanics that can be related to subjectivity but the mechanics of intelligence and emotions have objective mechanicanism.
Where did I say that?
^ rr don’t understand the distinction between affect and effect
i told you the distinction
as to brain washing
why argue against intelligence unless you want people not to believe it exists?
I know the distinction, you’re using it wrong. I’m arguing against certain CONCEPTIONS of intelligence. Duh.
The problem is, Anime talks about intelligence from a completely physicalist perspective.
And that triggers RR.
Correct.
This is why you cannot be trusted to have real discussions.
you straw man everything I say.
metabolic loop formation processes are not reductionist.
that is the dishonest strawmen rr keeps saying I have of the brain, my view is not reductionist. Dynamic Loop systems exist you cannot refute that.
You jump around so much it’s hard to pin down what you believe. Especially since most of your writing is incoherent with different trails of thought and no structure behind it.
So can you give me some references?
If you don’t know what I am saying that’s more proof you are against me calling me hereditarian (psychological or otherwise) because you assumed I am when you don’t know.
If you believe intelligence has no mechanism then you are more ignorant than I supposed.
You cannot have intelligence without mechanisms because then there would be no way to solve problems. Problems need mechanical solutions you cannot get with only emotional affects if that’s what you believe intelligence just is.
You cannot get pattern matching without executive function to make the problems solving.
Subject and objective need an interface you don’t believe in?
What do you mean by “mechanism”?
Problem solving is an action, and uses intelligence (an emergent property) to be carried out by an agent using their previous knowledge and interactions with others within a sociocultural context.
actions cannot happen without the memory of a systems approach.
and if you say that’s true or deny it, actions via memory is a physical process.
you don’t get to say everything to do with intelligence is nonphysical and expect people to believe physical memory systems don’t exist.
you need to study more on reinforcement learning, thinking planing and actions.
“you don’t get to say everything to do with intelligence is nonphysical”
That’s not my claim.
You know that anime thinks artificial intelligence is possible don’t you melo?
That tells you something about how he thinks about what brains need to be intelligent, not just philosophy but the actual mechanics.
Why the fuck do you constantly refer to yourself in third person? Cringe…
melo and rr are both triggered because they don’t have a brain and because melo is peepee.
You wish I was Pumpkin.
You gotta deal with the fact that there is more than 1 person on this blog who’s smart than you.
Excellent interview with Ezra Klein on Jon Stewart’s podcast.
I can’t believe I defended this shit. We are so fucking screwed. I don’t understand how shit like this happens. We have completely incompetent people running the government and I don’t think it’s an IQ problem.
It’s a culture problem. We don’t celebrate rational people.
All rr and melo do is get ‘educated’ by jews constantly.
Should be exciting watching markets tank today. I’m guessing a 5-7% drop in the S&P.
Puppy will cry and cry for his beloved 1%.
4% in 30 mins. Come on baby. Make me a prophet.