NotPoliticallyCorrect

Home » Brain size » Neanderthals, Inbreeding, r/K Selection Theory and Eurasian Birthrates

Neanderthals, Inbreeding, r/K Selection Theory and Eurasian Birthrates

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 72 other followers

Follow me on Twitter

JP Rushton

Richard Lynn

L:inda Gottfredson

Goodreads

1000 words

Science Daily reported last week that Neanderthals left humans a genetic burden, which is having less offspring. Of course, these deleterious alleles only introgressed into non-African populations due to Africans not leaving Africa. This manifests itself today in birth rates within countries and between them based on the ethnic/racial mix. And (not) coincidentally, the areas with the highest rate of children are in sub-Saharan Africa.

The Neanderthals existed in small bands, so inbreeding was common. Due to this inbreeding, Neanderthals were more homogenous than we are today. When humans migrated out of Africa, they encountered the inbred Neanderthals who they interbred with. Harmful genetic variants acquired from Neanderthals are shown to reduce the fitness of populations with certain deleterious alleles. There are of course tradeoffs with everything in life. Increased intelligence and being better able to weather the Ice Age, among numerous other factors, were positive things gained from interbreeding with  Neanderthals. Negative effects were the acquisition of deleterious alleles which still persist today in non-African hominids. These deleterious alleles decreased biological fitness which manifests itself in the birthrate of Eurasian populations throughout the world (the Germann and Japanese birthrate is 1.3 for reference).

Harris and Nielson also hypothesize that since Neanderthals existed in small bands that natural selection was less effective, allowing for weakly harmful mutations to pass on and not get weeded out over the generations. However, when introduced back into humans these effects become lost over time due to a large population with natural selection selecting against the deleterious Neanderthal alleles. Using a computer program, Harris and Nielson quantify how much of a negative effect the Neanderthal genome had on modern populations. The conclusion of the results was that Neanderthals are 40 percent LESS genetically fit than modern humans.

The researchers’ simulations also suggest that humans and Neanderthals mated more freely, which leads more credence to the idea that Neanderthals got absorbed into the Homo Sapien population and not mostly killed off. The estimation for Neanderthal DNA in modern hominids from the simulation was around 10 percent, which then continued to drop as the Neanderthal-Homo Sapiens hybrids interbred with those who hardly had any Neanderthal DNA. More evidence also shows that the percentage of Neanderthal DNA was higher in the past in Eurasians as well. Which makes sense since Asians have on average 20 percent more Neanderthal DNA than Europeans due to a second interbreeding event.

However, Harris and Nielson end up concluding that non-Africans historically had a 1 percent loss in biological fitness due to Neanderthal genetics. Moreover, a better immune system came from Neanderthal genetics. Skin color is another trait inherited from Neanderthals as well.

Along with the acquisition of deleterious Neanderthal alleles, early Eurasians also encountered the same environment as the Neanderthals. Those selection pressures, along with interbreeding due to small bands lead to a decrease in the number of children had. Fewer children are easier to care for as well as show more attention to. All of these variables in that environment lead to fewer children produced. It’s a better evolutionary strategy to have fewer children in more northerly climes than in more southerly ones due to the differing selection pressures. Environmental effects are also one reason why birthrates are lower for populations that evolved in northerly climes (Neanderthals and post-OoA hominids). Harsh winters lead to a decreased population size, as evidenced by the Inuit and Eskimoes, which their low population size didn’t allow for selection for high IQ despite having the same brain size as East Asians.

I couldn’t help but think that, yet again, for the second time in two weeks, one of JP Rushton’s theories was confirmed. This confirms one of the many variables of Rushton’s r/K Selection Theory. Just like I covered how Piantadosi and Kidd corroborated Rushton’s theory of brain size and earlier child birth. Neanderthals had bigger brains than we do today, and knowing what we know about the correlation between IQ, brain size and early childbirth, I would assume that Neanderthals also had earlier childbirths as well,.

Along with these deleterious gene variants from Neanderthals, other variables that contribute to the decline in Eurasian populations also include higher IQ as well, as JP Rushton says, is an extreme way to have control over their environment and individuality. These traits are seen in higher IQ populations in comparison to lower IQ populations. We could also make the inference that since Eurasian children have bigger heads, that multiple childbirths would be taxing on the Eurasian woman’s birth canal while it would be less taxing on the African woman’s.

This study also shows that Neanderthals also had less offspring due to being more intelligent. They had bigger brains than we do today, and since we know that higher IQ is correlated with fewer children conceived, we can say that they were pretty damn smart (they buried their dead 50,000 years ago. There was also a recent discovery of a 176,500-year-old Neanderthal constructions in a French cave).  A main cause for the current trend in birthrates in Eurasian populations is due interbreeding with Neanderthals. These events also attributed more to the decline of the Neanderthals.

Deleterious Neanderthal alleles are yet another reason for lower Eurasian birthrates, which shows = that the current trend currently happening in the world with these populations is natural and evolutionarily based. I’ve said a few times that by showing positive things to women on television will increase the white birth rate, with Rushton cites National Socialist Germany as one example. By showing women happy with children, this lead to a massive boom in the German population. To ameliorate the effects of low natural birth rates, these positive things need to be shown on television to women to start to reverse the effects of low natural childbirths.

It’s been a great month for Rushton’s theories, with two of them being corroborated in one month. It’s only a matter of time before the denial of human nature is completely discarded from modern science. As the data piles up on human genetic diversity we will not be able to deny these clearly evident factors any longer.

Advertisements

75 Comments

  1. Santoculto says:

    ”Science Daily reported last week that Neanderthals left humans a generic burden, which is having less offspring. Of course, these deleterious alleles only introgressed into non-African populations due to Africans not leaving Africa. This manifests itself today in birth rates within countries and between them based on the ethnic/racial mix. And (not) coincidentally, the areas with the highest rate of children are in sub-Saharan Africa.”

    huuuum, we need analyse at long term, seems, all human populations in a R-environment scenario will adjust to have more kids and in a K-environment scenario they tend to adjust to have less.

    To understand birth rates we must need study about history of human demography and demographic transition.

    Also, we need analyse how culturally malleable are the ordinary humans to adjust/”adapt’/conform with the current situations.

    what make people have less kids today**

    – ”selfish’ behavior,

    – deviant sexuality,

    – shyness,

    – confuse cultural scenario,

    – too altruist,

    – too worried or long term future,

    – extreme endogamy,

    – genetic incompatibility, etc etc etc

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      huuuum, we need analyse at long term, seems, all human populations in a R-environment scenario will adjust to have more kids and in a K-environment scenario they tend to adjust to have less.

      Of course. But I’ve never heard of r populations having more kids in an K environment and vice versa for K selected populations. Do you have source?

      Also, we need analyse how culturally malleable are the ordinary humans to adjust/”adapt’/conform with the current situations.

      Exactly. Propaganda is known to change people’s perceptions on things. JP Rushton says in pre-WWII Germany that showing positive things with white women with children caused a population increase. To ameliorate the effect of low birth rates this is what we have to do.

      All of the points you brought up are good ones. Though most of those variables have a genetic component. Rushton did say that, for instance, the low European birthrate is due to a need for individualism and a want to have control over their environment. Of course feminism is another big cause.

      Rushton had an AmRen talk on genetic similarity theory and Dr. Duke asks Rushton why white birthrates are low.

      Birthrates are correlated directly with a woman’s education. Women with more schooling have less children and vice versa. Feminism has been a huge problem for white birthrates, media propaganda as well as genetic factors don’t help it.

      Like

  2. Santoculto says:

    In this aspect i think Pumpkin Person is right when s’he said ” ‘intelligence’ is the capacity to ”adapt” ”, but just in this aspect or perspective.

    People who are K-oriented, who tend to score higher in iq tests (or there are higher proportion of people who are K-oriented that also score comparatively higher in iq tests than R-oriented), in contrast that Rushton said, no have, essentially speaking, less kids, they tend to be prone to adjust themselves to have less kids in a K-like environment while R-oriented people seems to be more lazy to adjust themselves during changes.

    This explain higher correlation between poverty and R-oriented types.

    Otherwise we think, K-environment is not more safe than in R-environment, like a cold eurasian surface is not more safe than a exuberant tropical african forest, even both is very hard environment.

    Temperated climate select for K-oriented type

    less kids**

    not exactly

    capacity to [comparatively] simple logic thinking**

    yes, likely

    environmental changes,

    K-oriented type seems understand it easy and try to self-adjust

    R-oriented type because their lack of future-orientation don’t self-adjust.

    they live in a eternal adolescence.

    R-oriented are less prone to adjust themselves because they think less at reflective/strategic way, they are less prone to weight pros and contras.

    is like, live without think systematically about your actions.

    what happened with two cousins, both adopted and mullatos, a 40 years old woman and a guy with my age.

    The guy already have 3 kids.

    The woman also 3 kids and with 3 different fathers.

    I think the standard of life in comparison with personal/familial income in many societies also is a relevant aspect to explain why, even people with good income and married, are having less kids.

    Feminism, a very selfish hedonistic society, also contribute a lot to make not=so perceptively smart people to have less kids even when they have all conditions to have more.

    Malthusian thinking,

    when the environment is abundant in food and comfort, people tend to have more kids, this factor increase the vulnerability of human traditional societies because they humans adapt few times in their lives, seems.

    but we live in a castrated social environment.

    I also think if demographic transition has had some influence in the Flynn Effect, but firstly we must need understand what this effect really is.

    i already don’t know, very nebulous.

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      In this aspect i think Pumpkin Person is right when s’he said ” ‘intelligence’ is the capacity to ”adapt” ”, but just in this aspect or perspective.

      If that’s the case then there is no such thing as a non-intelligent population. Intelligence is quantified with IQ tests which then the differences in the g factor are compared with each other. Populations with differing levels of average intellect clearly have differing levels of civilizational advancement.

      People who are K-oriented, who tend to score higher in iq tests (or there are higher proportion of people who are K-oriented that also score comparatively higher in iq tests than R-oriented), in contrast that Rushton said, no have, essentially speaking, less kids, they tend to be prone to adjust themselves to have less kids in a K-like environment while R-oriented people seems to be more lazy to adjust themselves during changes.

      This explain higher correlation between poverty and R-oriented types.

      Rushton said:

      There is indeed evidence that this trade off exists at a quite profound level and moreover is related to other characteristics, the whole complex being partly genetic in origin (Rushton, 1985). My own guess is that low fertility may be partly mediated by a psychological process in which the desire to be in control of both oneself and one’s environment is taken to an extreme.

      GENE-CULTURE COEVOLUTION AND GENETIC SIMILARITY THEORY: IMPLICATIONS FOR IDEOLOGY, ETHNIC NEPOTISM, AND GEOPOLITICS

      Those with higher intelligence are able to resist sexual urges better than those with lower intelligence.

      The higher correlation with r-types and poverty is lower intelligence being correlated with more children. Like I told Argus Cronus, dumber people have more kids while more intelligent people have less. How many children a woman has is highly correlated to years of schooling.

      Otherwise we think, K-environment is not more safe than in R-environment, like a cold eurasian surface is not more safe than a exuberant tropical african forest, even both is very hard environment.

      “Safe” is subjective. There is a differing selection happening due to differing environments, but what is safe in Eurasia is different in comparison to what is safe in sub-Saharan Africa.

      I think the standard of life in comparison with personal/familial income in many societies also is a relevant aspect to explain why, even people with good income and married, are having less kids.

      Exactly. It’s an extreme want to control every aspect of the environment, as I alluded to earlier.

      Feminism, a very selfish hedonistic society, also contribute a lot to make not=so perceptively smart people to have less kids even when they have all conditions to have more.

      Feminism is a huge cause. Since it pushes women to be “empowered” and “get an education” and “smash the patriarchy”, women have less children because they’re focused on being self-sustaining which leads to no or less kids since they are focusing on an education and not bearing children.

      I also think if demographic transition has had some influence in the Flynn Effect, but firstly we must need understand what this effect really is.

      I think it’s meaningless. It’s not on the g factor.

      Like

    • Santoculto says:

      ”If that’s the case then there is no such thing as a non-intelligent population. Intelligence is quantified with IQ tests which then the differences in the g factor are compared with each other. Populations with differing levels of average intellect clearly have differing levels of civilizational advancement.”

      the basis to the survive is the ”intelligent” behavior.

      so all populations, humans and not humans are BASIS-CALLY smart. what differentiates will be their levels of efficient sophistication of this species-common/basic intelligence.

      Quantified,

      supposedly,

      i think

      ”partially quantified”

      but

      qualified**

      cultures who people are prone to support, engage, ‘understand’ and fight partially-to-predominantly explain the quality of the collective intellects of human populations

      and i don’t think if quality will be the same than quantity

      the caucasian superiority is largely technological

      just look when iberians invaded ”Americas”

      amerindians seems have on avg a much more advanced culture than iberians, uber-catholicism (irrealistic approach about factual understanding), social unequalities, even they no have alphabet.

      So, if most people are completely blind about certain pseudo-religion as already exist as ”official” despising fatal/factual/obvious/illogical contradictions and fight for it, this people will be on avg less qualitatively smart (less wise and/or creative), even withou a comparative perspective, self-comparison, what is golden rule-right and not.

      ”Those with higher intelligence are able to resist sexual urges better than those with lower intelligence.

      The higher correlation with r-types and poverty is lower intelligence being correlated with more children. Like I told Argus Cronus, dumber people have more kids while more intelligent people have less. How many children a woman has is highly correlated to years of schooling.”

      I think ”smart people will have less kids in a K-environment while dumb people will be less quick to understand this change to adjust themselves, they need more monitoring than others” but ”in R-environment i think ‘smart’ and ‘dumb’ people will have similar number of kids”.

      this is basically malthusian thinking applied in a individual or familial level

      the ratio food quantitity versus mouth quantity

      ”smart” people seems to be just more quick to understand this logic.

      but my opinion about the fundamental difference between the ”smart” and the ”dumb” is that the second have, on avgr, less control about their own hormonal desires, more similar to a non-human animal behavior.

      when their biological clock play they just react appropriately, this explain largely why many them become long term poor. I see it among my adopted cousins.

      ”“Safe” is subjective. There is a differing selection happening due to differing environments, but what is safe in Eurasia is different in comparison to what is safe in sub-Saharan Africa.”

      Yes i think i leave underling about when i said ”both are hard”, but the climate annual change is a plus, other level of difficulty to survive. seems obvious, we can see it by the number of non-human species who live in cold areas and those who live in tropical and equatorial areas.

      ”I think it’s meaningless. It’s not on the g factor.”

      what is the g factor*

      Like

    • Santoculto says:

      ”the caucasian superiority”

      moral superiority seems very recent and not by noble reasons… so

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      so all populations, humans and not humans are BASIS-CALLY smart. what differentiates will be their levels of efficient sophistication of this species-common/basic intelligence.

      We have discussed this before. I do agree with you, but there is a difference in raw g between populations. This sounds like a Sternberg argument, though.

      Otherwise we think, K-environment is not more safe than in R-environment, like a cold eurasian surface is not more safe than a exuberant tropical african forest, even both is very hard environment.

      Sure. But life is easier in Africa in comparison to Northern Europe. This is how differences in intelligence between populations came about: differing selection pressures in different environments. The comparison is where we see differences in general intelligence. The average African will have a lower average IQ in comparison to a European. The baseline comparison is what matters.

      just look when iberians invaded ”Americas”

      amerindians seems have on avg a much more advanced culture than iberians, uber-catholicism (irrealistic approach about factual understanding), social unequalities, even they no have alphabet.

      …What? How do ‘Native Americans’ have a more advanced culture than Iberians?

      Yea those with lower intelligence act on their natural urges more while those with higher intelligence are able to suppress them better, which is why I brought up how those with higher IQs lose their virginity at a later age in comparison with those who have lower IQs. This is why blacks rape so much.

      I think ”smart people will have less kids in a K-environment while dumb people will be less quick to understand this change to adjust themselves, they need more monitoring than others” but ”in R-environment i think ‘smart’ and ‘dumb’ people will have similar number of kids”.

      Smarter people will see that they need to have more children in a different environment, yet less intelligent people won’t see that they need to have fewer children in order to survive in that different environment. This shows how higher IQ people have a better ability to plan ahead.

      Yes i think i leave underling about when i said ”both are hard”, but the climate annual change is a plus, other level of difficulty to survive. seems obvious, we can see it by the number of non-human species who live in cold areas and those who live in tropical and equatorial areas.

      The difference in average temperature caused intelligence differences between the races. Exactly right. Animals are much more abundant in more tropical climes in comparison to those from more northern ones.

      what is the g factor*

      Spearman’s g. The factor that oversees all other factors of intelligence. Those with higher g have higher intelligence.

      moral superiority seems very recent and not by noble reasons… so

      What is the cause of the recent change then?

      Like

    • Santoculto says:

      ” This sounds like a Sternberg argument, though”

      and what’s the problem**

      we have two persons

      the first is very good to talk, understand and interact with other people.

      the second is a ”book-smart”, but is not so good to understand and interact with other people.

      the first can’t learn more about ”book-knowledge-issues” than a second person and the second person can’t to be more emotionally smart than the first, even both can improve, is not the same than become very smart.

      first case: higher emotional and intrapersonal cognition or if you want ”intelligence”

      and

      second case: higher verbal and very possibly mathematic cognition

      the ”existence” or not of factor g don’t disprove the reality of psycho-cognitive diversity of human beings aka ”multiple intelligence” or better ”diverse psycho-cognitive combinations”.

      many iq-fetishists like to say

      ”Sternberg ‘theory’ was created to pass the idea that everyone are smart, a emotional comfort for those who are not book-smarter.”

      maybe they are partially right about the Sternberg intentions , but i think their intentions wasn’t empathetic but political, you know… white people are on avg ”book-smarter” than black people, so ‘we need create a way to desconstruct this psychometric hierarchy’.

      many times people have the right/correct thinking but use it to the second and not so-correct intentions.

      IF MOST of ”book-smart” people use this convergent, technical and verbal knowledge in many of its life-perspectives as ”interact correctly with the people” i not argue with you about it.

      BUT…

      we no have this quasi-perfect or at even exponentially prevalent homogeneity of smart behaviors among high iq people.

      the higher the iq, higher will be the wisdom (perfectionist behavior via factual understanding)

      my opinion is that between the middle of bell curve, 95-120 we will have more random combinations than a progressive linearity.

      ”Sure. But life is easier in Africa in comparison to Northern Europe. This is how differences in intelligence between populations came about: differing selection pressures in different environments. The comparison is where we see differences in general intelligence. The average African will have a lower average IQ in comparison to a European. The baseline comparison is what matters.”

      I don’t think is EASY because i think both are differently hard, what seems must differentiate a tempered and cold environment and a homogeneously hot-agreeable environment is that in the first we must need to prepare to the annual climate changes.

      ”…What? How do ‘Native Americans’ have a more advanced culture than Iberians?”

      for example, ”religion”. amerindians on avg were and still to be less lunatic with ”jewsus” and other unfairly tales than iberians/europeans. Amerindians manage evenly their natural resources without destroying it, they have greater local geographical knowledge, what generally hunter gatherers tends to develop, they lived in relatively equitable societies, they develop a good natural medicine. Yes, they had some barbaric habits and still they have like put to death ”defective” newborns, but ”even” in the classical Greece this were the habit for centuries.

      something wrong happened when occur the transition between a hunter gatherer society to the ”civilization”.

      ”Yea those with lower intelligence act on their natural urges more while those with higher intelligence are able to suppress them better, which is why I brought up how those with higher IQs lose their virginity at a later age in comparison with those who have lower IQs. This is why blacks rape so much.”

      I don’t think smarter ones SUPRESS but they BORN with less hormonal behavioral influnece to supress.

      yes, but generally, this people lose later their virginity not because they supress better their sexual impetus but because they have little chance during their adolescence and early adult life to lose their virginity, probably by higher introversion, problems to understand subjectivity of the social laws, less atractive, looking like a neotenic nerd, less smarter women to lose their virginity, etc

      ”Smarter people will see that they need to have more children in a different environment, yet less intelligent people won’t see that they need to have fewer children in order to survive in that different environment. This shows how higher IQ people have a better ability to plan ahead.”

      yes but i think this happen exactly because they tend to have less hormonal/biological clock influence. i talked about this because i have relative disposition to the sexual impulsivity, i know what i’m talking about and i think about less reflective people.

      ”The difference in average temperature caused intelligence differences between the races. Exactly right. Animals are much more abundant in more tropical climes in comparison to those from more northern ones.”

      even the vegetation, sparse in very cold areas.

      ”Spearman’s g. The factor that oversees all other factors of intelligence. Those with higher g have higher intelligence.”

      that’s the problem,

      higher [verbal, mathematical and/or spatial] intelligence or better cognition

      i can’t internalize this vague sentence

      stupid, stupid does

      smart, smart does

      and we don’t make just technical activities.

      iq can be very correlative with work, but we are not machines, literally speaking, worker is just a one identity of the human/or non-human beings.

      you understand when i separate the terms cognition and intelligence**

      ”What is the cause of the recent change then?”

      jews.

      they desconstruct the old subjective/traditional/”religious” morality and make people more sincere or honest about their feelings

      even, we know, they doing this not because ”they’ are morally correct people but to create what i define as ”the ditactorship of freedom”.

      Like

    • Santoculto says:

      I just read about the animals that live in deep and cold water. In cold regions metabolism of animals tend to be slower.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      the first is very good to talk, understand and interact with other people.

      the second is a ”book-smart”, but is not so good to understand and interact with other people.

      Your first point is personality traits and your second is intelligence.

      the first can’t learn more about ”book-knowledge-issues” than a second person and the second person can’t to be more emotionally smart than the first, even both can improve, is not the same than become very smart.

      first case: higher emotional and intrapersonal cognition or if you want ”intelligence”

      and

      second case: higher verbal and very possibly mathematic cognition

      I still say your first point is personality. Check out the Big Five Personality traits. Again, your second point is general intelligence, g.

      the ”existence” or not of factor g don’t disprove the reality of psycho-cognitive diversity of human beings aka ”multiple intelligence” or better ”diverse psycho-cognitive combinations”.

      Gardner’s theory is rubbish.

      Really the point of this post is for people who cite “multiple intelligences” as an argument against IQ. A lot of them hear “multiple intelligences” and imagine that this is in opposition to the other idea which is that intelligence is just one thing. Nobody believes that, the fact that there exist tests on which “g” is less than 100% of the score is evidence of this fact. In the analysis above, “g” only correlates with each subtest at .685, not 1.000.

      Herrnstein and Murray also rebut it in the beginning of The Bell Curve.

      many iq-fetishists like to say

      ”Sternberg ‘theory’ was created to pass the idea that everyone are smart, a emotional comfort for those who are not book-smarter.”

      maybe they are partially right about the Sternberg intentions , but i think their intentions wasn’t empathetic but political, you know… white people are on avg ”book-smarter” than black people, so ‘we need create a way to desconstruct this psychometric hierarchy’.

      many times people have the right/correct thinking but use it to the second and not so-correct intentions.

      IF MOST of ”book-smart” people use this convergent, technical and verbal knowledge in many of its life-perspectives as ”interact correctly with the people” i not argue with you about it.

      BUT…

      we no have this quasi-perfect or at even exponentially prevalent homogeneity of smart behaviors among high iq people.

      That’s pretty much why he has his theory, but it falls short. I rebutted his theory. Those with higher IQs are more eccentric on average. Sternberg’s intention was to say that “there is no such thing as smart and dumb. Put one from Europe in Africa (pre-modern times) and the European would most likely perish. Vice versa for the African in Europe.

      I don’t think is EASY because i think both are differently hard, what seems must differentiate a tempered and cold environment and a homogeneously hot-agreeable environment is that in the first we must need to prepare to the annual climate changes.

      I wholeheartedly agree with you. However, The selection pressures in Northern Europe selected for higher g due to the harshness of the climate in comparison to sub-Saharan Africa.

      for example, ”religion”. amerindians on avg were and still to be less lunatic with ”jewsus” and other unfairly tales than iberians/europeans. Amerindians manage evenly their natural resources without destroying it, they have greater local geographical knowledge, what generally hunter gatherers tends to develop, they lived in relatively equitable societies, they develop a good natural medicine. Yes, they had some barbaric habits and still they have like put to death ”defective” newborns, but ”even” in the classical Greece this were the habit for centuries.

      something wrong happened when occur the transition between a hunter gatherer society to the ”civilization”.

      This is my favorite quote about ‘Native Americans’:

      Some populations aren’t fit to live in modern society, hence the problems in those populations.

      I don’t think smarter ones SUPRESS but they BORN with less hormonal behavioral influnece to supress.

      Great thought.

      yes, but generally, this people lose later their virginity not because they supress better their sexual impetus but because they have little chance during their adolescence and early adult life to lose their virginity, probably by higher introversion, problems to understand subjectivity of the social laws, less atractive, looking like a neotenic nerd, less smarter women to lose their virginity, etc

      All due to high intelligence (sans unattractiveness). The ‘nerd’ stereotype is true, for instance with glasses. The correlation between IQ and myopia is .25.

      iq can be very correlative with work, but we are not machines, literally speaking, worker is just a one identity of the human/or non-human beings.

      I agree. But one with a higher IQ has a better chance to succeed in life.

      you understand when i separate the terms cognition and intelligence**

      Explain.

      jews. they desconstruct the old subjective/traditional/”religious” morality and make people more sincere or honest about their feelings

      even, we know, they doing this not because ”they’ are morally correct people but to create what i define as ”the ditactorship of freedom”.

      Can you go in more depth?

      I just read about the animals that live in deep and cold water. In cold regions metabolism of animals tend to be slower.

      How Does Temperature Affect Metabolism?

      Like

    • Santoculto says:

      ”Your first point is personality traits and your second is intelligence.”

      what a fuck!!!

      you can be less vague**

      ok, you said it

      now

      develop your point of view…

      Explain to me why do you think that the first is ”just” a personality traits and other is ”intelligence”.

      fundamentally

      intelligence = behavior

      1- what do you understand about the sentence ”stupid, stupid does” **

      when we analyse the behavior of other ”savage” species we are in the same time analysing their intelligence.

      that’s the fundamental problem about this psychometric-centric point of view because

      when we analyse domestic non-human animals we tend to analyse their capacity to learn human instructions and this doesn’t mean fully/completely intelligence, can’t be directly translated as ”intelligence”.

      if you agree with me that just analyse what people can do in their jobs/school is the same that what we generally to do when we analyse the ”intelligence” [learn human instructions] of domesticated species, ok.

      ”I still say your first point is personality. Check out the Big Five Personality traits. Again, your second point is general intelligence, g.”

      seems

      first

      you’re amateur of the psychology, as myself

      second/but

      do you really study it deeply or constantly or just take this conclusive informations and repeat without analyse and criticise**

      ”Gardner’s theory is rubbish.”

      no completely, maybe their intentions was dishonest, maybe the terms that was used as ”intelligence” are wrong, but this theory make a lot of sense.

      ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL REASON THAT HBD’ERS TO BE AGAINST THIS THEORY IS BECAUSE IT WAS CREATED TO ATTACK IQ/”scientific racism”

      ”Really the point of this post is for people who cite “multiple intelligences” as an argument against IQ. A lot of them hear “multiple intelligences” and imagine that this is in opposition to the other idea which is that intelligence is just one thing. Nobody believes that, the fact that there exist tests on which “g” is less than 100% of the score is evidence of this fact. In the analysis above, “g” only correlates with each subtest at .685, not 1.000.
      Herrnstein and Murray also rebut it in the beginning of The Bell Curve.”

      i don’t understand,

      you say that ”Gardners’ ‘theory’ is rubbish” and now you say ” ‘multiple intelligences’ are the same thing than iq” so seems a unecessary/redundant theory.

      ”That’s pretty much why he has his theory, but it falls short. I rebutted his theory. Those with higher IQs are more eccentric on average. Sternberg’s intention was to say that “there is no such thing as smart and dumb. Put one from Europe in Africa (pre-modern times) and the European would most likely perish. Vice versa for the African in Europe.”

      i don’t think you’re functional illiterate or just without attention.

      I said Sternberg or Gardner intentions don’t invalidate the idea that some people are good in something and other people are good in other-thing and that is can interpret as at least different individual cognitive excellences.

      intelligence evolution and inside into a civilization mean: adapt progressively via selective pressures to the civilizational demands and many times it mean ”less muscle, less emotional stability, less reproductive impetus, etc” but, a avg european can learn easily the cultural instructions of a hunter gatherer society but he can’t have certain kinesthetic facilities to be well succesfull in this environment. avg european can learn easily about the pinnacle of hunter gatherer knowledge. in other hand, seems incredible unlikely that a current avg hunter gatherer learn the pinnacle of high-civilizational knowledge, specially in hard sciences. both are specific adaptations, the first is a kinesthetic/body exotic/specifically local adaptation, the second is a mental exotic adaptation.

      there are such thing dumb and smart but

      first: all of us are in the same time individually dumb, avg and smart , depend the domain
      second: where we are better than ”others”, we can say ”we are smart here”

      ”Gardner’s ideas about completely separate intelligences isn’t even mentioned. It doesn’t even come into it.”

      I disagree that ”specific intelligences” are completely separated one each other but that there are individual and subgrupal qualitative/quantitative epicenters that express themselves in a diversity of cognitive-individual excellences.

      i don’t understand, MOST of psychometricians deny the existence of emotional intelligence, seems, you also deny, calling it a ”personality trait”.

      nope

      personality trait is a EXPRESSIVE TRAIT

      for example,

      be shy

      you can be very shy,
      more or less shy,
      reasonably shy

      but

      i can use shy to attrack the opposite/or not sex. behavior = intelligence

      i can use my shyness to conquest the confidence of other people. behavior = intelligence

      i can use it to manipulate others. behavior = intelligence

      i can write poetry or literature about my shyness. behavior = intelligence

      i can reflect my past faults about my shyness in social interactions and learn about it. behavior = intelligence

      emotional/verbal/ intrapersonal qualitative epicenter there.

      intelligence or better, cognition, is not just temperament but behavior, temperament or personality traits is different than behavior

      emotional intelligence = how you can manipulate, improve, use it to achieve in life, in job, in micro (family, near), macro social circles, about yourself, controlling your emotions, use them correctly, to yourself.

      this is not a personality trait, sorry

      of course, emotional intelligence correlates with personality traits, but they are not the same thing.

      ”I wholeheartedly agree with you. However, The selection pressures in Northern Europe selected for higher g due to the harshness of the climate in comparison to sub-Saharan Africa.”

      my pet theory is that in a very harsh environment more people will die (strong natural selection) specially in the begining of adaptation while in agreeable environment more people will survive, include those who are not good cooperatives.

      ”This is my favorite quote about ‘Native Americans’:

      please, don’t quote ”Rand” again, she created a very idiotic pseudo-philosophy.

      ”Some populations aren’t fit to live in modern society, hence the problems in those populations.”

      Populations or subgroups*

      why modern societies can reduce unemployment to near 0% **

      ”Great thought.”

      if i have a frank talk with my cousins is likely that they will agree with me that have many kids without conditions to sustain it is not a good thing.

      they understand, but natural forces, which are more primitive inside them push them to the ”irresponsability”.

      ”All due to high intelligence (sans unattractiveness). The ‘nerd’ stereotype is true, for instance with glasses. The correlation between IQ and myopia is .25.”

      i though this correlation is higher.

      ”I agree. But one with a higher IQ has a better chance to succeed in life.”

      Because worker = machines, 😉

      ”Explain.”

      look to the avg east asian capacity to concentration. we have all the time personality and cognition (what you understand as intelligence) working all the time one each other. East asians have on avg less dominant personality/hormonal influence and they can concentrate ”fully” in any mental activities (all activity are mental, period). People who are more dominated by their personality tend to be more impulsive and they are less able to become concentrated. there is a study where was found a correlation between to do bad in school and in the laboral adult life and to be very ”multitasking”.

      multitaskers are always thinking sparsely about many things in the same time. they can’t concentrate fully in just one thing. i thought many blacks are like that** i also think many creative people also look like a multitasker.

      there is a popular stereotype about women to be more multitasking than men.

      cognition is our mental capacity to do something but without the ”interference” of personality, like memorise, apply knowledge and aculturally.

      what your brain can learn about this lesson, of course, when i’m talking about convergent cognition.

      intelligence is a diverse but universal good-to-very good (qualitative) exponentially interactive combination between personality and cognition.

      and the best way to see the manifestation of the intelligence is in the cultural/social scenarios, but humans, because their very social nature, are also, hierarchical and very cognitive-specialized.

      iq analyse aculturally/without context, about ”potential”, about idealization of the intelligence, like

      a ”paradox” of intelligence: why so many ‘smart’ people are liberal.

      ”Can you go in more depth?”

      more**

      they are ”the bad guys’ who expose the fatal moral contradictions that build western/generally any civilization and use it to take advantage to their own tribal ethno-cult.

      they identify the moral faults of euro-descendents and use it against them.

      I just read about the animals that live in deep and cold water. In cold regions metabolism of animals tend to be slower.

      ”How Does Temperature Affect Metabolism?”

      well, i think in place with food shortages, and it needs more heat, selects by metabolisms that keeps more heat longer.

      same analogy with the cactus that store water to withstand dry or the polar bear, which is heated with the fat of your body, if I’m not saying anything stupid.

      I think that the environment does not affect the environment selects.

      the environment affects and if the reaction is not adaptive, the organism will die logically.

      environmental adaptation sometimes will happen gradually.

      we have to watch our ways to talk to be more precise semantically and also scientifically accurate.

      people do not usually have compasses to know when we’re talking literally or figuratively.

      Like

    • Santoculto says:

      This idiotic Rand…

      I thought most of amerindian leaders or maybe alphas were eliminated/vanished before the great march to the wild west in the USA in XIX.

      Just change amerindian by European. Some similarity??

      Like

    • Santoculto says:

      Maybe I get me in the part of my comment where I compare how we tend to analyze intelligence/behavior of domesticated and wild species because you just can argue

      “so that humans who adapt in human environments are behaviorally smarter in the same way that wild species”

      But I have other and irresistible chart
      At least for me

      “Human complexity require complex understanding of their behavior/intelligence. So just compare us with adaptative behavior or wild animals isn’t enough, if we can do singular advanced mental things and other lifes not about their brains or body system”.

      Understand my proposal about intelligence and cognitions with this metaphor

      General Intelligence is the solar system

      Specific conditions/domains and sub domains are like the planets

      Behavior via personality (attraction) + specifics cognitions result in “diverses/asymmetrically distributed cognitive profiles or “intelligence” as if everyone were like their own solar system.

      Like

    • Santoculto says:

      Not

      “I get me”

      Correcting

      “maybe you get me”

      Like

  3. Santoculto says:

    Tempered climate have higher behavioral changes during the year and selected for people

    and other animals**

    … who are prone to adjust to this annual changes.

    like

    look for the trees species which are adapted to the temperated climate and look for the trees species wich are adapted to the tropical and equatorial climates**

    K oriented can self-adjust and change their behavior

    R oriented**

    i don’t think they can, even they can think reflectively, they can’t surpass their hormonal influence.

    my opinion of course

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      … who are prone to adjust to this annual changes.

      Exactly right. Animals have more or less children depending on the state of their environment. Rushton wrote about this.

      Wynne-Edwards (1962) suggested that whole groups of animals collectively stopped breeding when population density got too high, even to the point of killing their own offspring. Wynn-Edwards says that the purpose of the above mention is to protect the animal’s ecology so that all of the animals may benefit from the self-sacrifice in the long run. Though, Williams (1966) found evidence against Wynne-Edwards’ hypothesis of group selection.

      Altruism and Ethnocentrism

      This makes evolutionary sense.

      Right on K and r-type behavior and capacity to change it. K-selected peoples can better resist sexual urges. The ‘nerd stereotype’ is a good example.

      Like

    • Santoculto says:

      ”Exactly right. Animals have more or less children depending on the state of their environment. ”

      yes but i don’t think exactly

      ”they have”

      or

      translating

      ”they adjust”

      just look for the R-oriented humans,

      they have more kids even when environment become problematic.

      i think

      non-human animals are selected to have less kids, in other words, in unsafe environment, those who are more cautious,

      more descendents die in this unsafe environment

      or

      climate have influence in their behavior (to have less)

      but we see a lot of cold-adapted species having greater number of descendents.

      we must need differentiate the factors that produce K and R orientations of non-human animals and humans

      body size and fertility potential are important factors that may help us to understand why some non-human lifes, whatever the kind of environment, have more descendents,

      great part of insects for example, seems, have greater number of descendents.

      in other side, animals with great size tend to have less number of descendents.

      also, dogs and cats have on avg, 5 to 10 descendents or multiple pregnancy while this type of reproduction seems very rare among us.

      Most humans are primarily K-oriented because multiple pregnancy is rare among us.

      Mentally ”advanced’ humans or domesticated ones will be much more K-LEANING than those who are confined always in R-environment type but other aspects seems need to be better analysed, for example, north american amerindians with very lower fertility today. Amerindians, who are predominantly mongolid seems quick to ”adjust” (and not exactly the same to adapt) to the K-environment types, well, we need analyse if this adjustment was really faster, but if we compare them with afro-americans, at least it had been stronger, comparing fertility rates between them… or not, just saying.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Climate influences behavior over time of course, but wild swings in temperature also have an effect on behavior as well.

      Humans are different than other animals, obviously. I’d like to separate some factors from humans and non-human animals to see what kind of differences there are between r- and K-selected humans in comparison to r- and K-selected animals.

      Mentally ”advanced’ humans or domesticated ones will be much more K-LEANING than those who are confined always in R-environment type but other aspects seems need to be better analysed, for example, north american amerindians with very lower fertility today. Amerindians, who are predominantly mongolid seems quick to ”adjust” (and not exactly the same to adapt) to the K-environment types, well, we need analyse if this adjustment was really faster, but if we compare them with afro-americans, at least it had been stronger, comparing fertility rates between them… or not, just saying.

      Because K-selected people have more foresight into the future, as well as less of a sex drive in comparison to r-selected peoples.

      Do you know of any data on ‘Native’ fertility rates?

      Like

  4. Santoculto says:

    ”Rushton did say that, for instance, the low European birthrate is due to a need for individualism and a want to have control over their environment.”

    Europeans in the XIX had many kids.

    You can be individualistic and with a great family.

    Rushton commit the basic conservative thinking-style mistake

    he He looked at the product and despises the process.

    i call it as

    ”design intelligent [god] syndrome”

    Like

  5. Santoculto says:

    In less safe natural environment or you create a artificial/anthropomorphized environment to yourself and your group or

    you die

    in tropical regions natural environment are more predictable and people don’t need invent a parallel artificial environment to protect themselves agains the harsh climate out.

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      You can be individualistic and with a great family.

      Rushton commit the basic conservative thinking-style mistake

      he He looked at the product and despises the process.

      i call it as

      ”design intelligent [god] syndrome”

      Of course, you can. However, the more intelligent you are, the more individualistic you are. These average behaviors are what drives societies.

      Exactly right on the statements about environments.

      Like

    • Chinedu says:

      in tropical regions natural environment are more predictable and people don’t need invent a parallel artificial environment to protect themselves agains the harsh climate out.

      Where do you people come up with this junk? In a cold environment you wear animal skins, go into a cave or build a fire. Any caveman could do it and they did. Homo Erectus and Neanderthal did it and they were no geniuses.

      In fact, Africa had the harshest environment by several orders of magnitude. Neanderthal probably couldn’t last a year in the hot jungles and arid savannas of Africa. But it was very successful in Eurasia. Even today, some of the toughest animals in the world die from lack of water and food in Africa. Can you identify any animals that die from cold in Europe?

      Like

    • Santoculto says:

      ”Where do you people come up with this junk? In a cold environment you wear animal skins, go into a cave or build a fire. Any caveman could do it and they did. Homo Erectus and Neanderthal did it and they were no geniuses.

      In fact, Africa had the harshest environment by several orders of magnitude. Neanderthal probably couldn’t last a year in the hot jungles and arid savannas of Africa. But it was very successful in Eurasia. Even today, some of the toughest animals in the world die from lack of water and food in Africa. Can you identify any animals that die from cold in Europe?”

      i will not ”debate” with a ”religious” about it.

      ”this same argument”, i already see it in the pumpkin person blog.

      i don’t say ”african environment is much easy”, c’mmon son!!!!

      I say ”both are hard, but seems OBVIOUS that in cold, tempered environment you must need have even more caution because this annual weather changes while the equatorial and tropical weather changes little.

      You can’t say

      ”if neanderthals live in the hot jungles…”

      If they were primarly adapted to the cold.

      ”Even today, some of the toughest animals in the world die from lack of water and food in Africa. Can you identify any animals that die from cold in Europe”

      this don’t prove your point.

      Like

    • Santoculto says:

      ”Even today, some of the toughest animals in the world die from lack of water and food in Africa. Can you identify any animals that die from cold in Europe”

      Most of subsaharian populations has lived in tropical, equatorial regions and less in desertic or in savannah environments.

      I’m not despising the genius of the survive among intertropical human populations.

      I’m not talking about survive skills, that most of human populations have, but long term or planned behavior, what seems is more prevalent among those who are adapted to live in environment that naturally force this behavior.

      ”Can you identify any animals that die from cold in Europe”

      i should despise this nonsense-question…

      exactly, why not**
      because those who are not adapted

      die

      despising today, where most part of natural environments were destroyed by europeans…

      today, most of the species who live in cold environment must need to be very well adapted and most them are.

      you believe that africans are not on avg less ”smart” than whites*

      Like

    • Chinedu says:

      I say ”both are hard, but seems OBVIOUS that in cold, tempered environment you must need have even more caution because this annual weather changes while the equatorial and tropical weather changes little.

      You don’t know what you’re talking about. A place like Africa where deserts and jungles cover vast areas, where the soil is generally poor, where there are alternating floods and droughts and where there is a host of endemic diseases is where the most caution is required. white people couldn’t even go into the African interior without modern medications. Conversely, Africans could go anywhere in Europe.

      Europe had abundant water, “refrigeration” in the form of permafrost and dead animals were preserved where they fell allowing plenty of scavenging opportunities. European animals were fat and lazy and easy to kill compared to their genetically fine-tuned African counterparts.

      In short, Europe was much easier to survive than Africa. Don’t take my word for it, talk to any anthropologist or geologist.

      Like

    • Santoculto says:

      OF COURSE

      i will talk with ”anthropologists” where most of them are politically ”sensible” (”liberals”)..

      supposedly europe pre-civilization were easy to live***

      such nonsense

      i ask for you and i want a CLEAR answer:

      1- do you think that whites are on avg smarter than blacks** why*

      2- do you think that mass immigration to Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Anglo-saxon America is a good thing*** why*

      3- do you think that human races exist** why*

      4- what’s your ethnicity*

      Like

    • Chinedu says:

      i will talk with ”anthropologists” where most of them are politically ”sensible” (”liberals”)..

      You have no evidence that anthropologists are “liberals” that are suppressing information. Please desist from spouting the “liberals” and “political correctness” claptrap. You don’t get to dismiss opinions that differ from yours simply by invoking non-existent conspiracies.

      1- do you think that whites are on avg smarter than blacks** why*

      Absolutely not.

      2- do you think that mass immigration to Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Anglo-saxon America is a good thing*** why

      No I do not. And I have a particular disdain for past European immigration whereby the the Europeans killed anything that moved and destroyed environments, cultures and languages. Modern day immigration to Europe is legal and benign by comparison.

      3- do you think that human races exist** why*

      Race is whatever you want it to be. It’s arbitrary. So there could be one race or 10,000 races. Race does exist as a social reality. But at the genetic level, it’s meaningless because depending on how finely you want to delineate differences, you could create different races out of your own immediate family.

      4- what’s your ethnicity*

      Black African.

      Like

    • Santoculto says:

      All i need to say about you…

      Like

    • Santoculto says:

      Lol

      i need to KNOW about you.

      bye

      Like

    • Santoculto says:

      I will answer you only a one time, i hope, shit, i like to debate!! =(

      ”You have no evidence that anthropologists are “liberals” that are suppressing information. Please desist from spouting the “liberals” and “political correctness” claptrap. You don’t get to dismiss opinions that differ from yours simply by invoking non-existent conspiracies.”

      Leftoid and opportunistic people surprise me all the time because their complete lack of coerence in their thinking lines.

      i don’t know if MOST of liberals AND opportunistics are

      stupid

      because they deny OBVIOUS facts

      or

      evil

      because they lies compulsively and with full-awareness about planned extinction of european caucasians.

      maybe, we have those who are more evil than stupid and the those who are the classical useful idiots.

      And yes, my english is far to be good, but lack of logic seems worst.

      You indoctrinated yourself by whatever personal issues and lack of wisdom that human races and fundamentally human races don’t exist… because [white] racism, or because other popular arguments like ”there are more variation within races than among them” …

      ”United Nations” impose this stupid statement during 60’s.

      All european countries, even the distant and little New Zealand are being literally invaded slowly but constantly by masses and masses of alogenic people.

      Most-to-ALL of academia, in Brazil, Bolivia, USA, european countries like…

      Estonia**

      nations ”that never invaded” other out-of-europe country like Sweden.

      … have a very dominant (((”left-leaning”))) narrative, ”academic” guidelines…

      and you say for me that i can’t prove or no have evidence that (((liberals))) take the power and is breaking all this biological pandemonium against european caucasians!!

      tell me what do you think that will happen with ”white countries” with

      – very lower native fertility
      – miscigenation
      – MASS immigration **

      tell me, do you want that white people, whatever, race or just peoplehood, be extinct or substitute by mixed-race people*** And you desire the same to your african country**

      i’m mixed race, brazilian with probably 5-10% of african blood.

      be frank

      ”Absolutely not.”

      why**

      ”No I do not. And I have a particular disdain for past European immigration whereby the the Europeans killed anything that moved and destroyed environments, cultures and languages.”

      agree.

      ”Modern day immigration to Europe is legal and benign by comparison.”

      european immigration to the americas appears benign and ”legal” in the early.

      where white europeans REALLY ”colonized demopgrahically a land” if not in places like Anglo Saxon America, Argentina, Uruguay, extreme southwestern of Africa or Australia and New Zealand, and most part of this regions, before europeans, was weakly and sparsely populated.

      exponential ethnic substitution is happening now in ”white countries”, maybe just in Australia where really happened a very demographic erosion of the ”natives”.

      how do you define ”legal” in this context** what is mean*

      ”Race is whatever you want it to be. It’s arbitrary.”

      No. reality is understanding about graduality. race is just a sub-species, what is the problem to understand it**

      race is like a intra-variation, phenotypical and sub-genotypical of a same species.

      many people use arbitrarily this term, i agree about it.

      ”So there could be one race or 10,000 races. ”

      this don’t prove that race doesn’t exist.

      ”Race does exist as a social reality.”

      Albanians are europeans, most of them looking southeastern european caucasians, like serbians and greeks, but they are predominantly muslim.

      in the border of two or more races, like in balkans or in south america, indeed, race cultural definition become more prevalent as a ambiguous colors, like green lemon.

      but miscigenation OF the races don’t prove that it exist.

      but, even if human races don’t exist, so, whites as a ”cultural people” as well subsaharian peoples can’t be preserved or even have the right to the self-preservation**

      ”But at the genetic level, it’s meaningless because depending on how finely you want to delineate differences, you could create different races out of your own immediate family.”

      look like ”gender fluidity”, i agree about it, seems obvious,

      but ”you could create [others] DIFFERENT RACES”

      so, races don’t appear meaningless or even just a social reality for you…

      is incoerent to say that races is genetically meaningless if any genetic diferences will be just the inner-reflect of the phenotypical/exterior expression.

      shape and expression/reflection.

      Like

    • Santoculto says:

      ”but miscigenation OF the races don’t prove that it exist.”

      Always correcting some sentence, jeeez.

      ”but miscigenation OF THE RACES don’t prove that IT [races] don’t exist”

      if you don’t believe in races why not treat all human beings just as ”humans”** 😉

      the problem of the lefoid

      they want more equality

      oooooooh

      they want to finish racism

      ooooooh

      start to yourself

      stop to use or even study about ””races””’ and you will begin to be more coerent, 😉

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      @Chinedu

      Where do you people come up with this junk? In a cold environment you wear animal skins, go into a cave or build a fire. Any caveman could do it and they did. Homo Erectus and Neanderthal did it and they were no geniuses.

      Neanderthals were pretty damn smart, which there is good evidence for (re burial ceremonies 50000 years ago). You have to be intelligent in order to survive an Ice Age.

      Neanderthal probably couldn’t last a year in the hot jungles and arid savannas of Africa. But it was very successful in Eurasia. Even today, some of the toughest animals in the world die from lack of water and food in Africa. Can you identify any animals that die from cold in Europe?

      Right. Just like Africans wouldn’t be able to survive in an Ice Age in Northern Europe. A big factor in this is their skin color and there being less sunlight to produce vitamin D (a steroid hormone; not a vitamin).

      I can’t name any off the top of my head.

      You don’t know what you’re talking about. A place like Africa where deserts and jungles cover vast areas, where the soil is generally poor, where there are alternating floods and droughts and where there is a host of endemic diseases is where the most caution is required. white people couldn’t even go into the African interior without modern medications. Conversely, Africans could go anywhere in Europe.

      Poor soil quality didn’t stop the Boers and Afrikkaners from farming. As well as the white Zimbabweans that Mugabe kicked out (who he now wants to return).

      Africans evolved some mechanisms to fight against diseases, for instance, Sickle Cell Anemia evolved to fight malaria.

      Sure Africans can go anywhere in Europe and survive today, but would they have been able to do so, say, 30 kya? No.

      European animals were fat and lazy and easy to kill compared to their genetically fine-tuned African counterparts.

      In short, Europe was much easier to survive than Africa. Don’t take my word for it, talk to any anthropologist or geologist.

      Oh?

      Is this ‘fat and lazy’? ‘Easy to kill’?

      Anthropologists? Anthropology is not a science.

      One who is more intelligent will have an easier time surviving in Africa. How is Europe easier to survive than Africa? Any more examples?

      Santoculto: 1- do you think that whites are on avg smarter than blacks** why*

      Absolutely not.

      Why not? Have a citation?

      Santoculto: 2- do you think that mass immigration to Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Anglo-saxon America is a good thing*** why

      No I do not. And I have a particular disdain for past European immigration whereby the the Europeans killed anything that moved and destroyed environments, cultures and languages. Modern day immigration to Europe is legal and benign by comparison.

      Right of conquest.

      Santoculto: 3- do you think that human races exist** why*

      Race is whatever you want it to be. It’s arbitrary. So there could be one race or 10,000 races. Race does exist as a social reality. But at the genetic level, it’s meaningless because depending on how finely you want to delineate differences, you could create different races out of your own immediate family.

      Your family is more related to you than non-family. How is it meaningless at the genetic level? is Fst meaningless?

      Like

  6. Argus Cronus says:

    How does this article explain the so-called “baby boomer” generation? This doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Having children is a decision which is strictly based on life experience and not genetic capability in humans. It is proven that white women can have upwards to 10 children so this “study” is nonsense right off the bat. Pseudo-science.

    Like

  7. Argus Cronus says:

    “These deleterious alleles decreased biological fitness which manifests itself in the birthrate of Eurasian populations throughout the world (the Germann and Japanese birthrate is 1.3 for reference).”

    Complete nonsense. You pulled this conclusion out of your ass with absolutely no proof of causality.

    Like

  8. Argus Cronus says:

    And it looks like you are censoring comments. This gets better by the minute. Is this a scientific article or more anti-white, pro-miscegenation, pro-white genocide Jewish propaganda? You only accept comments you agree with? Is that it? That’s not surprising considering your article is so week even a 10 year old can take it apart, logically speaking.

    Like

  9. Argus Cronus says:

    Birthrates have obviously all to do with socio-economic factors and not genetic limitations. The Japanese didn’t always have a birthrate problem either. It’s all caused by socio-economic reasons. There is a sex war in Japan and males and females are not getting along, probably because of propaganda by the Jewish mafia since they’re attempting to destroy all races except the Jewish race.

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      How does this article explain the so-called “baby boomer” generation? This doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Having children is a decision which is strictly based on life experience and not genetic capability in humans. It is proven that white women can have upwards to 10 children so this “study” is nonsense right off the bat. Pseudo-science.

      One generation of booming disproves trends now? If one variable deviates from an average, can we then say that what is seen on average has been disproven because of the observation of an outlier? What do you mean when you say “It is proven that white women can have upwards to 10 children”? Of course they can, but what I’m talking about is the average birthrate. The study is not pseudoscience, did you even read the article provided?

      “These deleterious alleles decreased biological fitness which manifests itself in the birthrate of Eurasian populations throughout the world (the Germann and Japanese birthrate is 1.3 for reference).”

      Complete nonsense. You pulled this conclusion out of your ass with absolutely no proof of causality.

      No I didn’t. The article specifically states that non-African hominids have a 1 percent biological fitness decrease due to these deleterious alleles from Neanderthals. Read what’s provided. Proof of causality? Genes! The whole article is the causality.

      And it looks like you are censoring comments. This gets better by the minute. Is this a scientific article or more anti-white, pro-miscegenation, pro-white genocide Jewish propaganda? You only accept comments you agree with? Is that it? That’s not surprising considering your article is so week even a 10 year old can take it apart, logically speaking.

      I don’t censor comments. Your first comment needs to be approved by me, any comments after your first do not have to be approved. Getting criticism and having discussions is the best part so….. why would I censor that? If pro-white, pro-miscegenation, Jewish propaganda is what you got out of the article then that’s on you. The article is logically consistent. Rushton’s r/K Selection Theory works perfectly well what Harris and Nielson found about Neanderthal alleles in modern day non-African humans. It’s you who needs to better their reading comprehension and actually reading the links provided to get the whole story and see where I got my information from.

      Birthrates have obviously all to do with socio-economic factors and not genetic limitations. The Japanese didn’t always have a birthrate problem either. It’s all caused by socio-economic reasons. There is a sex war in Japan and males and females are not getting along, probably because of propaganda by the Jewish mafia since they’re attempting to destroy all races except the Jewish race.

      So with that reasoning, then the more money people have the more kids they should have right? So why do the richer countries in the world have lower birthrates? Why do the poorer countries have the highest? What you don’t seem to understand is that the poor breed more than the rich. It doesn’t come down to “they’re poor so they have kids” it comes down to “their stupid and that makes them poor, and their lack of ability for gratification along with the constant need to want whatever comes to mind immediately is the cause for poverty being correlated with birth rates”. Just because trends deviate from the average doesn’t disprove either theory presented. Rushton’s r/K Selection Theory is logically sound and makes evolutionary sense, as E.O. Wilson, co-founder of r/K Selection Theory says. Males in Japan are too effeminate. Low testosterone comes in to play here. Japanese shut-ins are called ‘hikikomori‘. Japanese, along with other East Asians, have an introverted personality type so this is a huge cause of the ‘hikikomori’ lifestyle, along with Western Culture making its way to Japan. The propaganda by the MSM hasn’t reached East Asia yet. They’re resisting multiculturalism. Japanese people are the definition of xenophobic. If anything, the Japanese along with the other East Asians will be the last to be affected by multiculturalism.

      JP Rushton also brought this up:

      First, I asked him his opinion of Francis Parker Yockey’s somewhat apodictic claim in Imperium that a political system will find ways to generate the population that it needs, thus if a society does not encourage immigration from without it will find ways to encourage the existing population to reproduce itself. The population gains due to immigration may, moreover, be partially illusory, since the disruption and competition caused by immigrants suppresses the reproduction of the native population.

      As I recall, Rushton thought this was interesting and could be formulated as a testable scientific hypothesis.

      Third, I asked Rushton if he thought the that the rising tide of non-white immigration into white countries could be explained as the result of businesspeople looking for cheap labor and welfare statists looking for needy constituencies, without any consideration of the common good or long-term demographic consequences. Thus white dispossession is merely a ghastly mistake, the unintended consequence of selfish and short-sighted policies.

      Rushton thought this was an inadequate explanation and stated flatly that he believed that mass non-white immigration was also driven by a conscious purpose: the extermination of the white race.

      Good old Phil. What I admired most about him was his manner of stating the most radical claims in a calm and unapologetic way. His manner conveyed both moral certitude and openness to reason.

      He also suggested that if I wanted to know who was behind non-white immigration, and why, I needed to read chapter 7 of Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique. (I had already been there, of course, but I wanted to see if that’s where Rushton would go.)

      Remembering J. Philippe Rushton: December 3, 1943–October 2, 2012

      That is, of course, a huge part. Even without mass non-white immigration, low birth rates would still be a problem, but less of one since there would be no demographic replacement. White pathological altruism is being used as a weapon to coerce demographic replacement. Genetic factors are what’s being used to push this. We can also see how the media can be used for manipulation:

      First, the mass media can attract and direct attention to problems, or in ways which can favor those people in power, and correlatively, divert attention from rival individuals or groups. Second, the mass media can confer status and confirm legitimacy. Third, in some circumstances, the media can be a channel for persuasion and mobilization. Fourth, the mass media can help to bring certain kinds of publics into being and maintain them. Fifth, the media is a vehicle for psychic rewards and gratifications. They can divert and amuse and they can flatter. In general, mass media are very cost effective as a means of communication in society; they are also fast, flexible and easy to control

      The Influences and Effects of Mass Media

      Since media is that strong of an influence and so much media is viewed daily, demographic replacement is easier to push due to the susceptibility of the populace to coercion through the media, which then take advantage of genetic factors.

      Like

  10. Chinedu says:

    Neanderthal was a glorified gorilla. If it had survived you might have to go to a zoo to see one. I can’t for the life of me figure out why white supremacists think Neanderthal lineage is beneficial.

    Historically, European women were baby factories. It was an adaptive response to higher child mortality rates in Europe vs. Africa. Remember, pre-colonial Africans were wealthier and lived better than Europeans. So, historically, Africans had fewer children per capita than Europeans, and certainly fewer than Asians (1.3 billion people in China alone). HBDers have a tendency to freeze time in the present and then go: “Aha! See, it’s because of genetics!” But intelligent people will examine issues with a historical perspective.

    Once again, yet another HBDer is trying by hook or crook to apply erroneous genetic explanations to phenomena that are more plausibly explained as functions of culture and socialization.

    Like

    • Salger says:

      “Remember, pre-colonial Africans were wealthier and lived better than Europeans.”

      WE WUZ KANGS.

      (The Egyptians weren’t and still aren’t Negroid by large)

      Like

    • Salger says:

      “Once again, yet another HBDer is trying by hook or crook to apply erroneous genetic explanations to phenomena that are more plausibly explained as functions of culture and socialization.”

      Culture has nothing to do with biology didn’t you know?

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      @Chinedu

      Neanderthal was a glorified gorilla. If it had survived you might have to go to a zoo to see one. I can’t for the life of me figure out why white supremacists think Neanderthal lineage is beneficial.

      Neanderthals were way smarter than gorillas. How is it beneficial? There are pros and cons as I have brought up in this article.

      Historically, European women were baby factories. It was an adaptive response to higher child mortality rates in Europe vs. Africa So, historically, Africans had fewer children per capita than Europeans, and certainly fewer than Asians (1.3 billion people in China alone). HBDers have a tendency to freeze time in the present and then go: “Aha! See, it’s because of genetics!” But intelligent people will examine issues with a historical perspective.

      Talking about the time around the Black Plague? Source for European mortality rates being higher than Africans? Source for Africans having fewer children per capita than Europeans and Asians?

      r-selected peoples have more children to offset their environment where more child births will happen.

      Once again, yet another HBDer is trying by hook or crook to apply erroneous genetic explanations to phenomena that are more plausibly explained as functions of culture and socialization.

      When do genetic explanations end and cultural/socialization explanations begin? Are you a Blank Slater?

      @Salger

      WE WUZ KANGS.

      Never gets old. Too funny. Afrocentrics are delusional. I should write another Afrocentrism post soon.

      (The Egyptians weren’t and still aren’t Negroid by large)

      Exactly. Look at the Coptic Christians from Egypt. They are the descendants of the Ancient Egyptians. They also have mtDNA (IIRC) haplotype I2, which is a West Asian haplotype.

      I remember watching a documentary on Egypt a few months ago and it talked about how Mesopotamia and Egypt had extensive trade, why not people sharing as well? The elite of Ancient Egypt were of West Asian descent.

      Culture has nothing to do with biology didn’t you know>

      Check out gene-culture coevolution. The late Henry Harpending was a huge proponent of this, and Rushton wrote a paper on altruism and human mate choice and how gene-culture coevolution effects it.

      Like

  11. Jm8 says:

    “This study also shows that Neanderthals also had less offspring due to being more intelligent. ”

    The study does not show this. And more intelligent than what? Not than early European homo-Sapiens, whose technology was significantly advanced over that of Neanderthals, let alone current humans. Nor than early MSA African homo sapiens, who exhibit many of the oldest modern behaviors/technologies (sites like Blombos, Pinnacle point, Katanda/Semliki, Gademotta, Sibudu, etc…..)—though a few sites Neanderthals show a signs of modern-like behavior as well, the reverse is more likely, though that is more uncertain.
    Burials are not unique to Neanderthals and are more elaborate among Cro-Magnons.

    Very isolated hunter gatherer groups are and have reported to be often quite un-prolific (like the Andamanese and the Khoisan), sometimes having difficulty having many children, and this may have a genetic component. And neanderthal groups were smaller and more isolated partly due to the carrying capacity of their environments (and their perhaps incomplete exploitation of those environments. Cro-Magnon subsistence strategies are thought to have supported lager populations).
    It is not a guarantee of higher iq, nor necessarily an indicator.

    There is no evidence that neanderthals were more advanced or intelligent. If any thing, the reverse is more likely. And the advantages of sapiens likely included more than socially related ones.
    “The researchers found that Neanderthals that lived 25-75K years ago had a much higher proportion of their brains dedicated to visual processing, even when compared with anatomically modern humans living during the same time period. This specialization of their brains, the scientists propose, mean that less neural tissue was left over for higher-order reasoning, problem-solving and creating elaborate social networks. This would limit the Neanderthals’ abilities to, for example, trade for resources not endemic to their local habitat, or in times of local scarcity. Additionally, the scientists claim, Neanderthals’ ability to develop or learn new technologies could have suffered due to their brains’ specialization on visual acuity.”
    http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-03/eyes-have-it
    Neanderthal brains were larger to control their larger bodies. Some brain space in neanderthals was also devoted to visual processing (They had larger eyes.), and less brain power to brain executive functions (They had a smaller prefrontal cortex.) than in Homo Sapiens (who devoted more brain power to the latter, with a larger prefrontal cortex). Otherwise, Neanderthal brains were actually smaller.
    http://www.tested.com/science/life/454072-why-bigger-neanderthal-brains-didnt-make-them-smarter-humans/
    http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/whats-hot-human-origins/neanderthals-larger-eyes-and-smaller-brains
    http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/524386?journalCode=ca

    Modern humans in Europe were more advanced

    The proto Aurignacian-like Uluzzian and Chatelperronian cultures, previously speculatively linked to neanderthals, are now attributed to early (pre/proto-Aurignacian) European homo sapiens. http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2011/11/uluzzian-was-sapiens-not-neanderthal.html
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Châtelperronian#Dispute_over_disruption_of_the_site

    Like

  12. whyteablog says:

    The deleterious variants left by Neanderthals have been under strong negative selection for over 50,000 years. The genetic factors for Crohn’s disease and similar such immune problems given to us by Neanderthals are found in less than 1% of the population by now.

    Let’s do a conservative estimate and say that the most recent Neanderthal introgression event was 30 kya. We’ll say that Homo sapiens women in Europe around that time would tend to get knocked up at age 18 on average. We’re talking 1600 generations at least. Even if the ones with magic Neanderthal poop genes had ONE PERCENT less kids on average, their frequency in the population now would be the original frequency (10% maximum?) times (0.99^1600). Every single time a generation passed you’d get slightly less women with dumb Neanderthal anti-fertility genes. Zero by now.

    If we have less kids than Africans it’s because we were selected for it. There will be a narrative now that Blacks are biologically superior due to less inbred DNA, but that’s not the case: the fact remains that flagrant biological inferiority (such as having less kids for no reason) does not last for 30,000 years.

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      The researchers said that it accounted for a 1 percent decrease in fitness historically.

      Like

    • whyteablog says:

      So even by their numbers, their model doesn’t work. Hacks. No allele/alleles that confer a consistent 1% decrease in fitness will last 30K years.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      From the paper:

      Neither the out-of-Africa bottleneck nor Neanderthal admixture has much effect on the strong load. However, both the bottleneck and admixture exert separate effects on the weak load, each decreasing fitness on the order of 1%.

      From the discussion:

      Our results on mutations with additive dominance effects suggest that introgression reduced non-African fitness about as much as the out-of-Africa bottleneck did.

      The Genetic Cost of Neanderthal Introgression

      The out of Africa bottleneck affected fitness by 1 percent. So there’s a two percent fitness decrease in fitness in non-African populations.

      Also, the surviving Neanderthal alleles have a disproportionately large effect on a group of genes that affect fitness in comparison to Mendelian diseases.

      Like

    • whyteablog says:

      I’m telling you, it’s not a decrease in fitness. Any gene consistently bad for us is weeded out in that time frame. There’s literally no other way for it to happen. If we have less kids it’s because we were selected to do so.

      Like

  13. Jm8 says:

    Until recently (ca. 1950s-80s) much of Asia(incl. India, China, and Central Asia) had high birthrates in the subsaharan range (they are still very high, as in high by subsaharan standards, in Afghanistan today) as well as the heavily mongoloid (specifically Amerindian) populations of Central America and the Andes.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=birth+rates+by+country&biw=1265&bih=800&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjG9YPKv6_NAhWDFR4KHRkiD7AQ_AUIBygC#imgrc=kYCQtRilBUkd2M%3A

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

    Like

    • Jm8 says:

      cont.: And as mentioned, Asians (and Amerindians/Mestizos e.g.: Mexicans) have slightly more neanderthal dna than Europeans (about a half of a percent or less depending on ethnic group).

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      The researchers say that historically, non-African hominids had a decrease in fitness of 1 percent.

      And as mentioned, Asians (and Amerindians/Mestizos e.g.: Mexicans) have slightly more neanderthal dna than Europeans (about a half of a percent or less depending on ethnic group).

      Is there any data for birth rates of the ‘Natives’ in pre-Columbian times?

      You have to remember that migrating to a different location along with evolution for over 12000 years altered the genome of ‘Natives’. Their genetic profiles of them is unique due to genetic isolation from other populations. ‘Natives’ were the only population without any admixture from outside of the Americas.

      Like

    • Santoculto says:

      ”That’s absurd. No special intelligence is needed to survive an ice age.”

      lol

      less arrogance, please.

      try less arrogance, if you can.

      this is so stupid that i no have what to say, just thought

      why God**

      just look like this

      ”Neanderthals was a IMBECILE”

      A multiplication of Sheenzalas throughout Hbd-sphere

      good ”dreams” for you

      i just can see a bunch of LOWER FUNCTIONING IMBECILES here in Brazil with DARKER skins and AFRICAN phenotypes.

      this shit are real imbeciles

      and they are not just imbeciles but dangerous, people who make REAL RATIONAL ones reflect with themselves

      ”why this crap have the right to breathe**”

      ”what this crap MAY contribute with society**”

      absolutely nothing, like a plague in plantations.

      they don’t contribute but destroy, it’s a negative contributions.

      of course with very good exceptions, those who are not in the same bunch of this delay, but they are forced to live in ”community” with this problems. the first forced integration is between the good black people with bad black people, who are abundant, but generally low functioning to have macro-influence… but we have this ”’higher iq”” examples.

      and in the right side of the bell curve seems we have a bunch of OPPORTUNISTICS trying literally impose their retarded narrative like this

      ”That’s absurd. No special intelligence is needed to survive an ice age.”

      its majesty must think that inuits are imbeciles…

      If neanderthals had lived in africa i have little doubt that they would change completely their narrative, as dishonest people who don’t give a shit to the facts, tend to do.

      this people must be prohibited to have a diploma, just to start, but not

      ”””iq””” is enough.

      hbd with its insistence with ”just iq is enough” is just taking their own poison.

      Like

  14. Chinedu says:

    @RaceRealist:

    Neanderthals were pretty damn smart, which there is good evidence for (re burial ceremonies 50000 years ago).

    Neanderthal engaged in virtual hand to hand combat with big dangerous animals. Early humans killed from a stand off range. That’s one of the reasons we’re here and they’re gone. Neanderthal was an imbecile.

    You have to be intelligent in order to survive an Ice Age.

    That’s absurd. No special intelligence is needed to survive an ice age.

    Right. Just like Africans wouldn’t be able to survive in an Ice Age in Northern Europe.

    You have no evidence to support that statement. And when I said that white people couldn’t go into the African interior, I meant in the 19th and 20th centuries, not tens of thousands of years ago.

    Poor soil quality didn’t stop the Boers and Afrikkaners from farming

    It didn’t stop the blacks either because those are some of the best farm lands in Africa. The black people were farming those lands long before the British and Boers showed up. The Southern African conflict was/is essentially a struggle by blacks to regain their ancestral farmlands that were stolen by the whites.

    As well as the white Zimbabweans that Mugabe kicked out (who he now wants to return).

    Zimbabwe is not a race-based society. White people were never evicted and those that want to visit or live there are free to do so. But those on stolen farm lands must, at minimum, give most of it back to the rightful owners. Mugabe doesn’t want whites to come back and continue to practice white supremacy. But if they’re willing to be civil and respectful, then of course they can come back. They were never prohibited from living in the country in the first place.

    Sure Africans can go anywhere in Europe and survive today, but would they have been able to do so, say, 30 kya? No.

    This is wild speculation with no factual basis.

    Is this ‘fat and lazy’? ‘Easy to kill’?

    Yes, mammoths were fat, slow, lazy and easy to kill. Look at the picture you posted. It’s an animal you can get close to and spear with impunity.

    Anthropologists? Anthropology is not a science.

    Physical anthropology is indeed a scientific discipline.

    How is Europe easier to survive than Africa? Any more examples?

    There aren’t even any calm rivers or natural harbors in most of Africa. Most of the interior is a vast, elevated plateau cut off from the narrow coastal plain by mountains and escarpments.

    No other inhabited continent is more hostile to human life. Be thankful, that’s why you’re here. It was the ultra challenging African environment that gave rise to modern humans. There were pre-human precursors elsewhere, but none of them evolved into modern humans.

    Why not? Have a citation?

    You have the burden of proof. You’re the one making the extraordinary claim that black people are less intelligent on a genetic level. You have no proof other than laughable pseudoscience and alleged IQ averages. In other words, you have nothing.

    Right of conquest.

    If you believe in the right of conquest you should stop crying about immigration to Europe. If the ethnic, genetic and cultural make-up of Europe changes over time (and it will), that is another sort of conquest. A more peaceful, more gradual conquest.

    Your family is more related to you than non-family. How is it meaningless at the genetic level? is Fst meaningless?

    Yes, but they’re still different. So race is whatever you say it is. You and your brother could assigned to different races.

    Like

    • Santoculto says:

      ”That’s absurd. No special intelligence is needed to survive an ice age.”

      lol

      less arrogance, please.

      try less arrogance, if you can.

      this is so stupid that i no have what to say, just thought

      why God**

      just look like this

      ”Neanderthals was a IMBECILE”

      A multiplication of Sheenzalas throughout Hbd-sphere

      good ”dreams” for you

      i just can see a bunch of LOWER FUNCTIONING IMBECILES here in Brazil with DARKER skins and AFRICAN phenotypes.

      this shit are real imbeciles

      and they are not just imbeciles but dangerous, people who make REAL RATIONAL ones reflect with themselves

      ”why this crap have the right to breathe**”

      ”what this crap MAY contribute with society**”

      absolutely nothing, like a plague in plantations.

      they don’t contribute but destroy, it’s a negative contributions.

      of course with very good exceptions, those who are not in the same bunch of this delay, but they are forced to live in ”community” with this problems. the first forced integration is between the good black people with bad black people, who are abundant, but generally low functioning to have macro-influence… but we have this ”’higher iq”” examples.

      and in the right side of the bell curve seems we have a bunch of OPPORTUNISTICS trying literally impose their retarded narrative like this

      ”That’s absurd. No special intelligence is needed to survive an ice age.”

      its majesty must think that inuits are imbeciles…

      If neanderthals had lived in africa i have little doubt that they would change completely their narrative, as dishonest people who don’t give a shit to the facts, tend to do.

      this people must be prohibited to have a diploma, just to start, but not

      ”””iq””” is enough.

      hbd with its insistence with ”just iq is enough” is just taking their own poison.

      Like

    • Santoculto says:

      ”Yes, but they’re still different. So race is whatever you say it is. You and your brother could assigned to different races.”

      Of course champ,

      when you have a mixed race family,

      but

      ”race is not genetically relevant”

      like

      ”color eyes is not genetically relevant” because you can have two brothers with different color eyes.

      race IS NOT whatever you say it is, please.
      this is real science.

      ”If you believe in the right of conquest you should stop crying about immigration to Europe. If the ethnic, genetic and cultural make-up of Europe changes over time (and it will), that is another sort of conquest. A more peaceful, more gradual conquest.”

      AGREE ABSOLUTELY WITH YOU.

      and RaceRealist still use Aynd Rand retarded jewess pseudo-philosopher to ”explain”/justify amerindian fate.

      whitey

      take it now!!!

      dur

      RaceRealist,
      try to avoid hypocrisy or in this context: to be historically selective.

      ”they defend capitalism and during most part of the time, capitalists exploit whitey than help them” ok

      white guilty is not completely wrong, just

      accuse only whites to be guilt/morally corrupted is wrong

      and

      accuse every living white individual as if they had to go to the african coasts themselves and trafficates enslaved africans to the ”new world”.

      ”You have the burden of proof. You’re the one making the extraordinary claim that black people are less intelligent on a genetic level. You have no proof other than laughable pseudoscience and alleged IQ averages. In other words, you have nothing.”

      In the place with many dangerous animals you need to be hyper-vigilant, this explain partially or not the common personality type that tend to be prevalent among subsaharian groups and many of those with ”street personality”. Like a daily-warfare against the fauna and flora.

      Cold and tempered climates require basically two things

      capacity to plan
      delayed gratification

      and this two things are the philosophical rock of the ”modern” human behavior, abstract thinking, to think about non-immediate needs and or non-visually concrete things/existences.

      i may be wrong because most of human beings and many non-human species can understand emotions. ok, i can improve this

      advanced abstract thinking.

      People who accuse other to use pseudo-science to argue without analyse the material before is being at least dishonest, you*

      ”extraordinary claim” that blacks are on avg less intelligent on a genetic level.

      everything that correlates with life forms have a genetic level or better BASIS, that is not the same than level, basis = origin, what differentiates is

      direct genetic influence or role
      indirect genetic influence or role

      ”There aren’t even any calm rivers or natural harbors in most of Africa. Most of the interior is a vast, elevated plateau cut off from the narrow coastal plain by mountains and escarpments.

      No other inhabited continent is more hostile to human life. Be thankful, that’s why you’re here. It was the ultra challenging African environment that gave rise to modern humans. There were pre-human precursors elsewhere, but none of them evolved into modern humans.”

      Africa is a big continent, obviously there are less dangerous places to live there. seems what most people to do, they look for place with available water, food (hunt animals, start with less dangerous) and start to build their community. Some people start the civilization in this way. During the time most people will know progressively the environment where they live via patterns of the animal behavior, micro-geographical localization, available fruits or vegetables, wheather behavior, etc… they become sedentary and this knowledge about the overall patterns in their place, by logic, will increase in the same way that the size of their community.

      Your extraordinary claim that is easy to live in a place taked by ice era is based on their own belly buttom, despising completely the risk of shortage of food, that Europe had a dense and greater forests and with arctic temperatures.

      the cold and/or annual wheather changes already be equivalent to the dangerous species in the forest. Cold alone is already equally murderous than the dangerous species in the tropical forest or in savannah.

      You’re trying to create a hierarchy where early african environments were spectacularly dangerous than others, probably to explain why africans don’t evolved equally to the eurasian populations.

      while i’m trying, read: intruding on this conversation, to give a right weight to both, all earlier environments were spectacularly dangerous, one more dangerous than others, but spectacular at their basis.

      all them select to the intelligence, adapted to their local circumstances, but cold and tempered areas also selected to the abstract or reflective thinking and i’m not trying to say that africans no have this, but the proportion of cooperators and long-term thinkers/delayed gratification seems was logically more needed in this environment just and fundamentally because the cold or tempered climate.

      today is easy to say

      ”is easy perceive the passage of the time”

      of course, we have clocks, we have calendars (false but), we learn and we have easy disposition to learn it, we have the control of the time and place, or at least those who are more engaged but generally most people have this basic time perception.

      In the past, in the early humankind, this facility don’t exist.

      Tempered climate specially may perfect to select people with more ”abstract thinking” because the annual changes in the vegetation, fauna and landscape appearances.

      or better, was gradually build via successive generations people with more capacity to adapt to this tempered climate, this annual changes in the environment, tempered climate no have just one but four different environments, different climates in itself, hot summer, agreeable autumn and spring, and cold winter.

      I no have proof about what i’m talking about, i’m just speculating, as well you’re and very precipitated too, read, saying stupid things like ”was EASY to live in ice era places”

      is easy to live in modern technological environments, this is really easy.

      what is the most important to the survive of a life**

      food and water

      africa was abundant.

      ice era places OBVIOUSLY not, specially about food.

      what is happening now**

      double relaxation of the natural selection in modern places.

      in Africa and in other places, more people survive because the lack of the cold while in tempered and cold places many people die.

      but not just this, is not the cold that kill but the lack of planning and cooperation that really kill in this places.

      cold and tempered environments select for humans who are more planned, just it,

      hot and dangerous places select for humans who are more hyper-vigilant, with short-term behavioral dispositions, because the life in a place with many dangerous around just those with hyper-vigilant behavior who could survive very well. But there are other relevant aspects. What is the % of carnivorous and herbivorous animals in african environments** what is the % of carnivorous animals who have ”human meat tastes”**

      all continents fundamentally in the pre historic were very hostile to the human life.

      this is a excuse for african ”faillure”**

      ”neanderthals was imbeciles”

      ”east asians too*”

      Like

    • Santoculto says:

      ”Zimbabwe is not a race-based society. White people were never evicted and those that want to visit or live there are free to do so. But those on stolen farm lands must, at minimum, give most of it back to the rightful owners. Mugabe doesn’t want whites to come back and continue to practice white supremacy. But if they’re willing to be civil and respectful, then of course they can come back. They were never prohibited from living in the country in the first place.”

      yes

      you’re lunatic.

      kkk filial in Zimbabwe, nice.

      Like

    • Santoculto says:

      Most of humans even those who are ”adapted to the cold environments” are not really adapted to the cold, just put a finnish man, naked in the Helsinki winter and he will die. put the same man in a african summer and he is likely to die with skin cancer but not via heat, not because heat.

      eurasians don’t adapt to the cold, they adapt to the ”artesanal”/material/technological capacity to fight against harsh environments.

      i don’t doubt that many african societies also have created some metalurgic activity but eurasians improve it more, specially by civilizational advantage.

      Humans are more naturally adapted to the hot environments, clothes were invention to support cold enviroments.

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      “Tempered climate specially may perfect to select people with more ”abstract thinking” because the annual changes in the vegetation, fauna and landscape appearances.”

      As has been repeatedly mentioned, much of Africa—especially the various large Sahel and Savannah zones (and many other places; much of the Indian subcontinent/South Asia e.g.: parts of Central and South America) varies seasonally(drastically in the three respects you mention and othes; vegetation, etc.), requiring different survival methods at different times. These areas (namely the aforementioned African zones) have dry seasons lasting about half the year when very little grows, which can be very hard to survive without preparation; hunting traditionally increases and in preparation for which grain is stored in traditional granaries by local farming tribes.

      Like

    • Santoculto says:

      ”As has been repeatedly mentioned, much of Africa—especially the various large Sahel and Savannah zones (and many other places; much of the Indian subcontinent/South Asia e.g.: parts of Central and South America) varies seasonally(drastically in the three respects you mention and othes; vegetation, etc.), requiring different survival methods at different times.”

      Yes, i know because many of these areas are tempered too.

      ”These areas (namely the aforementioned African zones) have dry seasons lasting about half the year when very little grows, which can be very hard to survive without preparation; hunting traditionally increases and in preparation for which grain is stored in traditional granaries by local farming tribes.”

      You can’t compare a real tempered climate with a transitional semi-arid area because they are different. The variation in this areas is more about pluviosity amplitude than temperatures, like in brazilian semi-arid regions.

      we are talking about a non-place to live that is annually completely dominated by the ice and snow.

      what i already said

      i know about the diversity of harsh environments.

      but

      there are other questions

      for example

      humans who immigrated to the europe, middle east and east asia, based on ”out of africa” theory already was self-selected.

      just look for the genetics

      the first greater divergence happens between africans (black africans) and non-africans.

      they dispersed to the other continents.

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      They (both semi arid and temperate) necessitate regular preparation for survival, and/or the use of various different and innovative survival methods.
      Homo Sapiens is likely to have originated from (or been affected at an early period, possibly crucial to its formation: various times between 200-70,000 bc) by semi-arid and at times extremely dry climates (when Africa was even—much— drier than it is today; ice ages in near-polar/temperate areas tended to correspond to droughts nearer the equator).
      The traits that allowed sapiens to survive in these difficult climates (and that were developed there) likely were a contributor to the species’ success in colder (and other) ones later on.

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/drought-followed-by-brain-how-climate-change-spurred-evolution-of-human-intelligence-8884863.html
      https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008171121.htm

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      @Chinedu

      Neanderthal engaged in virtual hand to hand combat with big dangerous animals. Early humans killed from a stand off range. That’s one of the reasons we’re here and they’re gone. Neanderthal was an imbecile.

      Right we were the most fit. But relative to other hominids, the Neanderthal was not an imbecile.

      That’s absurd. No special intelligence is needed to survive an ice age.

      Ridiculous. Cold winters along with big populations are the cause for higher intellect *relative to Africans*.

      You have no evidence to support that statement. And when I said that white people couldn’t go into the African interior, I meant in the 19th and 20th centuries, not tens of thousands of years ago.

      . . .This is wild speculation with no factual basis.

      I do. Blacks would get less vitamin D due to decreased sun. That alone would be pretty devestating to them. Not to mention the complete different environments. Neanderthals wouldn’t last a few days, you claim, in Africa. The same would hold true for Africans back then as well.

      It didn’t stop the blacks either because those are some of the best farm lands in Africa. The black people were farming those lands long before the British and Boers showed up. The Southern African conflict was/is essentially a struggle by blacks to regain their ancestral farmlands that were stolen by the whites.

      It stopped Africans after Europeans got kicked out by Mugabe. They didni’t know how to farm, and those who had the forsight to see that they didn’t know what they were doing tried to get the white farmers to teach them how to farm before they left but Mugabe stopped it.

      And now Mugabe wants them back.

      Zimbabwe is not a race-based society. White people were never evicted and those that want to visit or live there are free to do so. But those on stolen farm lands must, at minimum, give most of it back to the rightful owners. Mugabe doesn’t want whites to come back and continue to practice white supremacy. But if they’re willing to be civil and respectful, then of course they can come back. They were never prohibited from living in the country in the first place.

      How do you ‘practice white supremacy’? The more intelligent people rise to the top while the less intelligent stay at the bottom.

      That turned out to be a bad move for his country.

      Yes, mammoths were fat, slow, lazy and easy to kill. Look at the picture you posted. It’s an animal you can get close to and spear with impunity.

      ‘Easy to kill’ implies little to no causualties.

      It did just come out a few weeks ago that man did hunt mammoths to extinction, of course many humans died. That’s not ‘easy to kill’.

      Physical anthropology is indeed a scientific discipline.

      I was talking about the AAA as a whole.

      No other inhabited continent is more hostile to human life. Be thankful, that’s why you’re here. It was the ultra challenging African environment that gave rise to modern humans. There were pre-human precursors elsewhere, but none of them evolved into modern humans.

      Europe/Siberia 40 kya. You’re delusional if you think otherwise. THAT is where modern human intellect arose.

      You have the burden of proof. You’re the one making the extraordinary claim that black people are less intelligent on a genetic level. You have no proof other than laughable pseudoscience and alleged IQ averages. In other words, you have nothing.

      Let me guess. The ‘laughable psuedoscience’ is Rushton, Jensen, Herrnstein, Murray, Gottfredson et al. It’s clearly not. Their studies are replicated numerous times.

      See Piffer 2015. He showed that populations differ in allele frequency for IQ.

      If you believe in the right of conquest you should stop crying about immigration to Europe. If the ethnic, genetic and cultural make-up of Europe changes over time (and it will), that is another sort of conquest. A more peaceful, more gradual conquest.

      I do agree. From an evolutionary perspective, life is about reproudction, not production (van den Berghe, 1981). Something will happen to shift the current situation soon, though. If not then Nature selects for the strongest individuals (those who reproduce more) and weed out those less genetically fit (those who breed less).

      Yes, but they’re still different. So race is whatever you say it is. You and your brother could assigned to different races.

      Not if the two parents are of the same race.

      Like

  15. Santoculto says:

    Maoris score comparatively higher in iq tests than most of native peoples in other places, specially in equatorial or tropical peoples and they had lived in tempered climates, similar scores of the american-mongolids, aka, amerindians.

    Like

  16. Chinedu says:

    @Santoculto

    I’m sorry, but your mangled and incoherent writing is too difficult to decipher. For the most part, I have no idea what you’re trying to say. You might want to write in your native language and I will plug it into a translator.

    Be aware that the Africans whose intelligence you are trying to malign are able to speak and write in multiple languages while still maintaining an impeccable command of the English language. Go to any Africa-themed blog and you won’t find any of the butchery of the English language you are demonstrating here. That is unless they are intentionally writing in pidgin English, which they sometimes do.

    Like

    • Santoculto says:

      ”I’m sorry, but your mangled and incoherent writing is too difficult to decipher. For the most part, I have no idea what you’re trying to say. You might want to write in your native language and I will plug it into a translator.

      Be aware that the Africans whose intelligence you are trying to malign are able to speak and write in multiple languages while still maintaining an impeccable command of the English language. Go to any Africa-themed blog and you won’t find any of the butchery of the English language you are demonstrating here. That is unless they are intentionally writing in pidgin English, which they sometimes do.”

      RaceRealist

      you also have problems to understand me*

      Like

  17. Chinedu says:

    Re: Egypt

    The evidence overwhelming supports the sub-Saharan African origins of the Ancient Egyptians, including most of the artwork and statuary they left behind.

    Now we have modern genetic evidence as well:

    http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf

    Like

  18. Chinedu says:

    @RaceRealist

    Ridiculous. Cold winters along with big populations are the cause for higher intellect

    So explain why apelike Neanderthal was so successful.

    Explain why Northwestern Europe was a barbaric backwater while there were advanced civilizations in the warmer latitudes.

    Can you identify just one sophisticated ancient structure in Northwestern Europe? Nope. Can you identify any ancient manuscripts from Northwestern Europe? Nope. They couldn’t figure out writing until it was imposed on them by those warm weather Roman conquerors. Other cultures had been writing for thousands of years.

    The actual evidence just doesn’t support your cold weather theory. In fact it’s absurd. If cold winters caused higher intelligence, we should expect to see evidence of that throughout human history. But in fact it was the people in the warmer latitudes that civilized those in the colder north.

    Blacks would get less vitamin D due to decreased sun. That alone would be pretty devestating to them

    Wrong. Dark skinned people are able to survive in the northern latitudes today without doing anything special. Can you cite just one case of a black person in Northern Europe suffering from Vitamin D deficiency?

    It stopped Africans after Europeans got kicked out by Mugabe. They didni’t know how to farm

    Of course the blacks knew how to farm. They were farming successfully long before the whites showed up. In fact they were the actual farmers on those white farms. The whites did no actual farming. It was the blacks that did the farming. Now it might be true that some of the blacks that got allotments of farmland had no actual experience. That’s experiential, not genetic. Modern farming also requires seed, equipment, credit, etc. Zimbabwe was under embargo and those things were hard to come by. In spite of all that, the idea that Zim farming has collapsed is more myth than reality:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/zimbabwe-farms-idUSL5N0B45IW20130208

    Please drop the stupidity. Blacks can farm just as well as whites and often better. It was black slaves from Africa that created the rice farming industry in the United States.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/11/071128-rice-origins.html

    Slaves from certain parts of Africa were sought after specifically for their expertise and skill at farming certain crops which the whites in America didn’t have.

    Let me guess. The ‘laughable psuedoscience’ is Rushton, Jensen, Herrnstein, Murray, Gottfredson et al.

    It’s their white colleagues and contemporaries that call them pseudoscientists, not me. I encourage anyone to search any of those names + pseudoscience. You’ll get a ton of hits that comprehensively debunk all their theories and ideas.

    Their studies are replicated numerous times.

    Yes, the rogues gallery of Pioneer Fund funded pseudoscientific quacks are notorious for replicating each other’s “studies” and even their own “studies.” But no real scientist has replicated any of their junk. By the way, if you are seriously interested in the truth, why do you latch on to widely debunked, universally censured and comprehensively refuted “scientists” while avoiding real and credible scientists like the plague? This is why most people think you HBDers have a racist agenda. It’s due to your selectivity and cheerypicking.

    Piffer 2015. He showed that populations differ in allele frequency for IQ

    First of all, IQ is not intelligence. If it were it would never rise or fluctuate as it does. Plenty of high IQ people are dull, slow and unable to think on their feet. So I don’t know how anyone can find allele frequencies for something that doesn’t exist.

    Having said that, Piffer’s work has not exactly received universal acclaim or much acclaim at all. Other researchers have already poked millions holes in his methodology and conclusions drawn.

    Any alleles for intelligence must necessarily be race neutral. Duh…there are intelligent and not-so-intelligent people in every so-called race. It doesn’t take a study to figure that out. Just look around.

    Not if the two parents are of the same race

    It doesn’t matter if the two parents are the same “race.” What exactly is race anyway? In the past, unless your parents were from the same European tribe they would have been considered members of different races. There was an English race, a Scottish race, a German race, etc. Some Africans call my people the Igbo race. Race is arbitrary. It means different things to different people in different parts of the world.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Please keep comments on topic.

Charles Murray

Arthur Jensen

Blog Stats

  • 128,229 hits
Follow NotPoliticallyCorrect on WordPress.com

suggestions, praises, criticisms

If you have any suggestions for future posts, criticisms or praises for me, email me at RaceRealist88@gmail.com
%d bloggers like this: