1100 words
(Note, 6/24/17: Rushton’s r/K selection in applications to human races is dead. It’s been dead for almost 30 years after and ecologist critiqued his method and use of ecological theory in application to human races. Now, that doesn’t meant that everything written below—or even on my whole blog—is fully wrong, just that the attempted explanation is wrong. It still holds that Eurasians have worse fitness than Africans, which is partly due to deleterious Neanderthal variants, however, r/K theory does not explain it.)
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.
NotPoliticallyCorrect 
”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
LikeLike
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?
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
Rushton said:
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.
“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.
Exactly. It’s an extreme want to control every aspect of the environment, as I alluded to earlier.
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 think it’s meaningless. It’s not on the g factor.
LikeLike
”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*
LikeLike
”the caucasian superiority”
moral superiority seems very recent and not by noble reasons… so
LikeLike
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.
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.
…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.
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.
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.
Spearman’s g. The factor that oversees all other factors of intelligence. Those with higher g have higher intelligence.
What is the cause of the recent change then?
LikeLike
” 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”.
LikeLike
I just read about the animals that live in deep and cold water. In cold regions metabolism of animals tend to be slower.
LikeLike
Your first point is personality traits and your second is intelligence.
I still say your first point is personality. Check out the Big Five Personality traits. Again, your second point is general intelligence, g.
Gardner’s theory is rubbish.
Herrnstein and Murray also rebut it in the beginning of The Bell Curve.
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 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.
This is my favorite quote about ‘Native Americans’:
Some populations aren’t fit to live in modern society, hence the problems in those populations.
Great thought.
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 agree. But one with a higher IQ has a better chance to succeed in life.
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?
How Does Temperature Affect Metabolism?
LikeLike
”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.
LikeLike
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??
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Not
“I get me”
Correcting
“maybe you get me”
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
Exactly right. Animals have more or less children depending on the state of their environment. Rushton wrote about this.
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.
LikeLike
”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.
LikeLike
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.
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?
LikeLike
”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”
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
”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.
LikeLike
”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*
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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*
LikeLike
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.
Absolutely not.
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.
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.
LikeLike
All i need to say about you…
LikeLike
Lol
i need to KNOW about you.
bye
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
”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, 😉
LikeLike
@Chinedu
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.
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.
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.
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?
Why not? Have a citation?
Right of conquest.
Your family is more related to you than non-family. How is it meaningless at the genetic level? is Fst meaningless?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
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.
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.
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:
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:
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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)
LikeLike
“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?
LikeLike
@Chinedu
Neanderthals were way smarter than gorillas. How is it beneficial? There are pros and cons as I have brought up in this article.
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.
When do genetic explanations end and cultural/socialization explanations begin? Are you a Blank Slater?
@Salger
Never gets old. Too funny. Afrocentrics are delusional. I should write another Afrocentrism post soon.
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.
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.
LikeLike
“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
LikeLike
edit:”…the reverse is more likely, though that (i.e. the reverse being true) is more uncertain.”
LikeLike
Skin color is controlled by multiple genes, (esp. in Europe and in lighter humans elsewhere) became pale gradually. The only gene that was proposed to come from Neanderthals was according to one article describing a paper BNC2 (it seems to not be not a skin color determinant compared to others, the article seems to exaggerate its importance), and I have not seen this claim confirmed or repeated. The lightest shades of skin evolved in Europe long after Neanderthals were extinct.
http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/R1/R9.full
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2008/05/fear-of-a-white-planet/#.V2L1zbp8upo
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22308-europeans-did-not-inherit-pale-skins-from-neanderthals/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129542-600-neanderthal-human-sex-bred-light-skins-and-infertility/
LikeLike
edit: “The only gene that was proposed to come from Neanderthals (BNC2) was according to one article describing a paper (it seems to not be amajor/very significant a skin color determinant compared to others. The article seems to exaggerate its importance),”
LikeLike
Many modern behaviors are first seen in MSA Africa (sometimes broadly similar to the Uluzzian or upper paleolithic):
The oldest projectiles(though throwing spears and not yet bows) occur ca. 270,000 bc Ethiopia (likely associated with some form of early sapiens-transitional sapiens/heidelbergensis)
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0078092
Evidence of arrowheads and adhesives dates at least 60-70,000 in South Africa
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.466.2274&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2010/08/26/Oldest-arrowheads-found-in-Africa/95431282863088/
Middle stone age cultures of southern Africa ca 150-70,000 bc show modern behaviors , including the use of bone tools, shell beads, the trade of minerals across substantial distances, the making of fat-based paints from ochre, seasonal fishing and shellfish, use engraved ornaments, and upper paleolithic-style stone points.
sites; blombos, Howiesons Poort, and Pinnacle point
e.g.:the preparation of stone for making microliths by precise heat treating to increase its flakeability at pinnacle point SA. from ca 150-70,000 bc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinnacle_Point
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howiesons_Poort
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blombos_Cave
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blombos_Cave#Ochre_processing_workshop
A Howiesons Poort tradition of engraving ostrich eggshell containers dated to 60,000 years ago at Diepkloof Rock Shelter, South Africa
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/14/6180.full
Bone harpoons from central Africa ca. 90,000 bc.
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-katanda-harpoons.html
The ishango bone (a mathematical object), dates to ca 20,000 bc, in the Katanda/Semliki region
The full late stone age (full upper paleolithic technology) appears in South Africa at about the same time as in Eurasia(40-50,000 bc.).
Border Cave and the beginning of the Later Stone Age in South Africa
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/33/13208.abstract
LikeLike
Should have changed my wording.
I said that because of this paper from Piantadosi and Kidd (2016) that says that natural selection for large brains leads to more premature newborns. Thus, higher cognition would evolve to better care for the helpless infant. We can also apply the r/K model and it fits almost perfectly with Rushton’s Rule of Three.
Well said.
Bigger populations have higher IQs due to a chance for mutations to develop then get selected for. For example, the Inuit have the same brain size as East Asians, but only an IQ of 91. This is due to a smaller population, which doesn’t allow for too many mutations that then get selected for a higher IQ.
I never claimed the Neanderthals were more intelligent. Due to their bigger brains, they were more intelligent relative to other hominids at the time. Controlling for body size Neanderthals didn’t have bigger brains/heads than Europeans.
Of course modern humans in Europe were more advanced. If Neanderthals were more advanced, they would have 4 percent Homo Sapiens DNA and Homo Sapiens would be extinct.
Skin color is controlled by over 350 loci. The variant of the Neanderthal gene POU2F3 has also been observed in East Asians, which 66 percent of East Asians have. 70 percent of Europeans have the BNC2 Neanderthal gene variant.
I clarified myself above. Though proto-Europeans breeding with Neanderthals did confer an advantage when it came to sunlight and vitamin D.
Thanks for the links.
We do know, however, that few Africans advanced beyond this point.
LikeLike
“…they were more intelligent relative to other hominids at the time
…We do know, however, that few Africans advanced beyond this point.”
Relative to most other hominids yes, but homosapiens in Africa—at least in certain areas—, as mentioned, shows much of the oldest evidence of the kinds of advanced behaviors/ likely intelligence that would come to define sapiens elsewhere (though evidence is somewhat inconsistent—though more common than such evidence in the case of neanderthals—and relatively little archaeological work by far has been done in Africa compared to Europe).
LikeLike
“If Neanderthals were more advanced, they would have 4 percent Homo Sapiens DNA ‘
Apparently the percentage estimate has been revised, down from 1-4% to 1.5-2.1%.
“In 2013, the same team of researchers revised the proportion to an estimated 1.5–2.1%”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_human_admixture_with_modern_humans#Genetics
LikeLike
Some of Neanderthals’ ability to survive the cold was likely based in their physical attributes i.e. somatic(their larger, stockier, more heat-conserving body type; much more extremely so than even the most cold-adapted modern humans today), rather than mental, (like their predecessor, European Heidelbergensis, or other temperate/cold weather non-human primates). There is some evidence that they may have been (fairly) hairy/furry.
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2012/01/were-neanderthals-furry.html
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
The researchers said that it accounted for a 1 percent decrease in fitness historically.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
From the paper:
From the discussion:
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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).
LikeLike
The researchers say that historically, non-African hominids had a decrease in fitness of 1 percent.
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.
LikeLike
”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.
LikeLike
@RaceRealist:
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.
That’s absurd. No special intelligence is needed to survive an ice age.
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.
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.
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.
This is wild speculation with no factual basis.
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.
Physical anthropology is indeed a scientific discipline.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, but they’re still different. So race is whatever you say it is. You and your brother could assigned to different races.
LikeLike
”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.
LikeLike
”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*”
LikeLike
”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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
”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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
@Chinedu
Right we were the most fit. But relative to other hominids, the Neanderthal was not an imbecile.
Ridiculous. Cold winters along with big populations are the cause for higher intellect *relative to Africans*.
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 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.
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.
‘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’.
I was talking about the AAA as a whole.
Europe/Siberia 40 kya. You’re delusional if you think otherwise. THAT is where modern human intellect arose.
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.
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).
Not if the two parents are of the same race.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
@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.
LikeLike
”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*
LikeLike
Santoculto is one of the more eccentric commenters in the HBD-sphere. He occasionally has some insights, but he refuses to demonstrate them in anything beyond a comically-bad 1st year ELS command of English.
LikeLike
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:
Click to access dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf
LikeLike
race
” what you want”
LikeLike
We Wuz Kangs
LikeLike
@RaceRealist
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
LikeLike
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-06/-death-spiral-looms-for-zimbabwe-economy-as-cash-runs-out
http://thesoutherndaily.co.zw/2016/05/16/white-farmers-rescue-zambia/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/29/zimbabwe-braces-for-economic-collapse-all-over-again-as-mugabe-v/
https://zimnews.net/zimbabwe-man-gambles-wife-on-real-madrid-juventus-uefa-match/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-11/new-law-to-compel-zimbabwe-banks-to-accept-cattle-as-collateral
http://www.sundaymail.co.zw/pay-school-fees-with-goats-labour/
LikeLike
Who cares about Zimbabwe? Do you know there are other countries in Subsaharan Africa, including some food-secure middle income ones. Are we supposed to judge Europeans based on Ukraine and Moldova?
LikeLike
ukraine and moldova are paradises compared to ghana. sad!
LikeLike
That’s not what the satisfaction with life index says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_with_Life_Index
LikeLike
current tfr in black africa guarantee that by 2100 it will be even poorer. afro! the most christian thing you can do is pay african men to have an orchiectomies.
LikeLike
Africa’s population growth is driven by decreased mortality, not increased birth rate. The population explosion is a consequence of development.
LikeLike
afro doesn’t know what “tfr” means. sad!
it’s as sure as anything in economic “science”. until black africans stop breeding like rabbits they’re not going to improve their living standards.
africa with as many people as asia = disaster.
LikeLike
I know what tfr means and I also know that living standards have improved a lot in Africa. Not fast enough for your outdated perceptions to change, but fast enough for many people to enjoy life as much as many do in the West.
Fertility has significantly decreased, especially in urban areas where it’s comparable to western countries a few decades ago.
LikeLike
well at least ghana has a low murder rate.
but the solution to the problems of the developing world is development not emigration. and emigration from the developing world ruins the developed world.
LikeLike
well at least ghana has a low murder rate.
All countries have low murder rates if you compare with Victorian times or with road fatalities.
but the solution to the problems of the developing world is development not emigration. and emigration from the developing world ruins the developed world.
It doesn’t, there is not a single negative socio-economic trend that is consistently linked to immigration. And most migrants don’t leave their continent, they go to neighboring countries instead. International remittances are an important source of income for developing countries, so emigration is beneficial to them, except when it’s brain drain which first world countries don’t mind.
LikeLike
there is not a single negative socio-economic trend that is consistently linked to immigration.
until you stop lying you should be laughed at or silenced like faurisson.
immigration effects a transfer of wealth from the labor to capital. this is econ 101. i know the french education system sucks, i didn’t know how hard it sucks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_J._Borjas
and you’ve already said you believe wages should never be raised…because inflation…that the rich should just get even richer…but their taxes should be raised.
you’re a puppet afro. the man is fisting you. and you like it.
truly sad!
LikeLike
immigration effects a transfer of wealth from the labor to capital. this is econ 101. i know the french education system sucks, i didn’t know how hard it sucks.
Nope, the French education system is in much better shape than America’s. It’s a myth that immigration drives wages down, immigration increases demand and many immigrants invest in business. It makes the cake bigger without decreasing the size of its slices.
and you’ve already said you believe wages should never be raised…because inflation…that the rich should just get even richer…but their taxes should be raised.
Public spending is much more efficient at redistributing income than private sector employment.
LikeLike
yep!
afro just keeps lying.
immigration also increases france’s prison population and homicide rate.
sad!
LikeLike
Both wrong:
Homicide in France
Homicide in Minority-Majority Paris
Incarceration
LikeLike
both right.
the above stats are irrelevant to my claim.
orchiectomy for afro.
LikeLike
It’s all relevant, you said homicide and incarceration were on the rise because of immigration. Homicide is decreasing, incarceration modestly increased without a direct link to immigration.
LikeLike
in peace time france’s incerceration rate has never been as high since 1880. afro believes that muslims are doing the crimes that frenchmen won’t do. hahaha. the french school system assures that france will once again be germany’s circus poodle. sad!
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7qgeva89BnIJ:www.vdare.com/posts/muslims-arent-70-percent-of-the-prison-population-in-france-because-of-something-wrong-with-france-but-because-of-something-wrong-with-muslims+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
LikeLike
This 70% stat is very dubious. It’s been estimated from a few prisons around Paris. Plus some people become Muslim in prison.
in peace time france’s incerceration rate has never been as high since 1880
What has really never been as high is the youth unemployment rate.
LikeLike
Very insightless link by the way.
LikeLike
and tell me this afro. why is it that i can’t immigrate to france, but an economic migrant from senegal can, especially if he gets picked up by the italian coast guard?
LikeLike
You can immigrate to France, it’d be very easy for you to stay as an illegal too. Just overstay.
LikeLike
by themselves the stats are meaningless.
what would the homicide rate have been if france were still nearly 100% french?
that’s the question.
the US homicide rate has also declined since 1980. this is due to mass incarceration, just as it is in france apparently.
note that france’s overseas territories with lots of blacks have yuge homicide rates in comparison to metro france.
france homicide rate = 1.58 according to wikipedia. finland, belgium, estonia, canada, the US are higher among developed countries, if estonia is developed.
if france was still near 100% french its homicide rate would be like italy’s, or lower.
sad!
LikeLike
what would the homicide rate have been if france were still nearly 100% french?
that’s the question.
Then that’s not a good question because there is no way to answer, especially since France has no ethnic stats. Plus crime like homicide mostly happens within communities, so even if some minorities are over-represented, it makes no difference for whites since they are overwhelmingly killed by other whites.
note that france’s overseas territories with lots of blacks have yuge homicide rates in comparison to metro france.
These Départements are on the drug trade routes to North America along with the rest of Central America and the Caribbean, yet they’re a lot less dangerous than the regional average. And ironically, people there complain that crime is caused by immigrants from neighboring countries.
Also, something like 50% of those born in the French Caribbean come to live and work in Metropolitan France at some point in their lives. Yet I’ve never heard anyone complaining about their unrestricted immigration here.
if france was still near 100% french its homicide rate would be like italy’s, or lower.
The Mafias have a quasi-monopoly on criminal activity in Italy as well as Corsica and parts of the French Riviera.
LikeLike
The black man is out of control…
LikeLike
hahahah, Notting Hill Carnival. Lit!
By the way GondwanaMan, do you know Paris Dennard? He reminds me of you.
LikeLike
I’ve heard of him. I looked at his Wikipedia page, and there’s no commonalities between me and him. None.
LikeLike
You’re both ultimate Uncle Toms.
LikeLike
Man, it’s totally you!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lGTcMnPyl8&t=19s
LikeLike
This man… LMAO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5ThiThJWdc
LikeLike
make it outside a white country afro. only then can you semi-honestly claim that brown france would be just as good as white france.
aut alba aut nihil.
LikeLike
That looks like great fun, the white people in the audience seem to enjoy it, much better than that:
I’ll spread my seed as I like. You’re lucky I pulled out or used condoms whenever I didn’t know if a girl was on the pill so far. But now I plan to impregnate my girl in less than one year. JJ’s about to conquer some genetic territory, so there.
LikeLike
no. a haitian orphan in france is the ultimate uncle tom.
LikeLike
I can’t remember when I was asked my opinion on coming here.
LikeLike
“Well, if it was up to me, I would have government funding of education up until the 8th grade. After which point, most teenagers (around 2/3rds) would start working, although they may have some intensive training on the side.”
So you assume that, even by current economic conditions let alone what’s soon to come, that there is enough work suitable for 2/3rd of teenagers to work at?
“Their work would pay for any additional training or apprenticeships they would need.”
Assuming that accounts for the realistic costs, have any real life examples that represent that?
” The smarter teens would continue to have government subsidized education up until 11th or 12th grade, although they would be encouraged to work, too.”
“encouraged”, assuming there’s realistic opportunity accounting for the other jobs being filled as well full time by other teens.
“And they would eventually pay back the costs of their extended education.”
From those jobs they are only “encouraged” to do that are likely already filled by 2/3rds of teens. Do you even know what the sum would be per student?
“People who wanted to go college would only be able to get government subsidies if they scored above 85-90th percentile on an IQ test, and went through a rigorous interview/psychological evaluation.”
Okay, this is where I have issues. Wouldn’t the “smartest teens” not even need college as many are capable of being self taught coders and engineers at this point?
With that said as well, how is any of this libertarian when by using genetic determinism as your measure (technically Phenotype itself) you are therefore interfering with their Freedom to choose where and how to spend their money?
This also applies to most starting “working”. Those teens would start doing part time jobs, not full-time jobs that would sustain them into adulthood.
But last, why would such a small number like the 85-90 percentile?
https://www.edubloxtutor.com/iq-test-scores/
That’s basically 8% of people. With all the various skill sets (which can be undermined as subtest in IQ by the whole number) and the general difference in thresholds required to be sufficient in each, is it realistic to restrain an additional 16% of the population of filling in the jobs that require post high school education?
With all said, what is IQ supposed to contribute? Innovators, or competent producers?.
In response to former, I ask why specifically for innovators and how would you define them. As for the latter see this.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557354/
But even if IQ lives up to its current hype, it’s moderate generally regarding its predictive value. That leaves plenty of room for cases of people with the money but not the “predicted potential” to go college for a profession.
It would be more realistic to say, past 8th grade, high school or trade programs would be options and college would also be an option with diversified tests based on profession and major. Even this would require updated data for thresholds.
LikeLike
Regarding subsidies, I misinterpret your reasoning but I have another argument, wouldn’t it be smarter to base it off of income rather than IQ since you expect higher IQ people to be able to have more money to pay?
LikeLike
I think you brought up some good points.
I mentioned over at Pumpkin’s that I would eliminate practically all college majors except for STEM. I truly believe that only the top 10-15 percentiles of the population (at the very most, 20th percentiles) even benefit from such an education. And most of these degree program would be 2-3 years at the most unless the person was interested in graduate-level training.
There would still would be a handful colleges offering degrees in areas like foreign languages, certain useful business fields (like accounting, actuarial science, risk management, etc.), law, and maybe foreign service studies. But these programs would only last a year at the most.
Trade schools would be offered to those above the 15-20th percentiles in intelligence in place of 9th and 10th grade education, if a person so chooses. 15th percentile in intelligence (white standards) is probably the bare for a person wanting to succeed in the skilled trades or even clerical jobs. IQ 85 is the bare minimum for military recruitment and I believe Gregory Cochran said an IQ 90 is the bare minimum for most skilled blue collar professions.
As for where all those jobs for teenagers would come from, that’s a really good question. It would probably be a lot of government-created boondoggle jobs, I don’t know.
LikeLike
gman is not in america because his ancestors overstayed their visas afro.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not an immigrant either, let alone an unwelcomed illegal.
LikeLike
1) I’m not pro-Trump, though. I was holding out hope at one time, but I’ve lost the faith.
2) I don’t care about “personality responsibility” or any of the other catch-phrases the American right spouts as their calling cards. Once you realize that a) personal responsibility is a meaningless phrase once you accept genetic determinism b) The libertarian-Christian right-military industrial complex right is almost as dangerous as the SJW left (or the neo-Nazi white supremacists, for that matter), it makes no sense to care about mainstream politics. or any mainstream political debates. I hate all of them!!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not exactly speaking about your political opinions. That’s just the way I’d imagine you defending your favorite HBD bloggers on TV debates, you know like peepee, gayman, HBD Dick and pig of the blogosphere. I think you’d pass for a ridiculous sell-out, you can’t disagree here.
LikeLike
Btw, the sole fact that you say you had hope in Trump, even if it was just for one second, says it all.
LikeLike
“personal responsibility is a meaningless phrase once you accept genetic determinism.”
As far as I’m concerned, this kind of HBD falls under Jayman territory. As far as what he’s covered, all he has really said was how behavior is heritable and how free will doesn’t exist (the way he phrased it is different from saying unable of making our own decisions). Again, that assumes we take Jayamn as credible as RR as pointed out his BS before.
In applying that to the principle, it does limit those who are able but not necessarily the ability itself.
As for being meaningless, if you are aware of socio-coevolution, cultural standards like that for selection wouldn;t make it meaningless under HBD.
LikeLike
Also, why did you like your own comment?
LikeLike
I liked my own comment because I wanted to.
LikeLike
Lol, what did you like in your comment?
LikeLike
Honestly, that comes off as unnecessary at best if that is to reflect anything about.
Generally in comment sections liking your own comments projects the idea that you need more than your own comment’s logic to come off as convincing.
LikeLike
It’s a good comment, what can I say. It reflects my personal beliefs very well.
LikeLike
Then what you are doing is counter-productive. As I said, if it is as good as you said, then you don’t need to.
LikeLike
I brought more attention to my comment by liking it. Just as I intended!
LikeLike
This is very confusing…
LikeLike
“I brought more attention to my comment by liking it. Just as I intended!”
No, you brought yourself more attention. As I reply to you don’t find your comment that interesting because your views are common even on both sides on the topic of HBD.
Personally I’m Left compared to the more common Alt Right types, but culture wise I’m somewhat Conservative as I value the role of structure in culture and populations.
Also, attention was never brought up when you had last explained your reasoning, again very telling. I’d say PP taught you Freudian deflection well, but we both know that simply resulted from your genes and genetic similarity drew you two together.
LikeLike
I have two choices. Which choice do I make? Is it affected by my mood that day? Maybe my boss pissed me off or I’m fighting with my girlfriend. Your mood and what is going on around you affects your behavior.
I don’t disagree that all behavioral traits are heritable. I disagree with the ‘woe is me. I can’t do anything at all to make life better for myself’, at least relative to the individual if he did everything ‘wrong’.
I lift three times per week. I can all of a sudden just choose to stop going, choose to start eating like shit and let myself go. Did my genes change for me to make that decision? Obviously not. Obviously, I don’t choose to not lift, I don’t choose to not eat right, and so I’m in good health and good shape.
By the way, JayMan shys away from the term ‘genetic determinism’ (read comments).
Read this comment by Ken Richardson, author of the book Genes, Brains, and Human Potential: The Science and Ideology of Intelligence:
In his recent Edge interview (Sep 24, 2016), Robert Plomin says, “I’m frustrated at having so little success in convincing people in education of the possibility of genetic influence. It is ignorance as much as it is antagonism.”
Also read this article by Ken Richardson:
So what is a gene?
Genes don’t do anything unless directed by the intelligent system. Genes are the slaves, not masters, of our development.
Psychological traits are also not normally distributed.
The Best and the Rest: Revisiting the Norm of Normality of Individual Performance
LikeLike
I’m probably Libertarian by the standards of most of the world, although I would like to see single-payer health care, more government funding of science research, a basic income, and better protection of the environment. Oh, and of course, strict border control.
But I’m curious, are there any environmental interventions that have been proven to work? Beyond eliminating extreme starvation and ensuring basic nutrients in everyone’s diet? And maybe providing birth control?
LikeLike
But I’m curious, are there any environmental interventions that have been proven to work?
Yeah, simply increasing the length of compulsory education as far as IQ is concerned.
This, and many other things on IQ or other traits.
But tell me, if you’re so curious about such interventions, why haven’t you yet searched the abundant literature on the topic instead of parroting clueless bloggers?
LikeLike
I’m probably Libertarian by the standards of most of the world, although I would like to see single-payer health care, more government funding of science research, a basic income, and better protection of the environment. Oh, and of course, strict border control.
Ok, I respect that although I don’t agree with many of these opinions. You’re a very weird libertarian though, because I can hardly see these policies being carried out without a very big ass government.
LikeLike
Also re genetic determinism:
Strong genetic determinism is not very common: the vast majority of traits are either moderately or weakly determined by genetics [33,32]. There are several reasons why strong genetic determinism turns out to be rare. First and foremost, the environment plays a very important role in the expression of most genes. An individual with the genetic potential to be six feet tall will not reach this height if he/she lacks a proper diet during childhood; an individual with a genetic predisposition toward alcoholism will not develop this disease if he/she never drinks alcohol. The complex interaction and interdependence of genes and environments, a fundamental and frequently ignored reality of biology, undermines the notion that genotypes alone determine (or cause) phenotypes [34,35].
Genetic modification and genetic determinism
Genetic Essentialism: On the Deceptive Determinism of DNA
The Tangled Tale of Genes and Environment: Moore’s The Dependent Gene: The Fallacy of “nature VS. Nurture”
You should also give this book a read:
DNA Is Not Destiny: The Completely Misunderstood Relationship Between You and Your Genes
LikeLike
Aren’t these things also “under the control of genes”?
Some papers:
Psychological Consequences of Early Global Deprivation: An Overview of Findings From the English & Romanian Adoptees Study
An adverse fetal environment permanently programs physiology which leads to increased risk of CVD, metabolic and neuroendocrine disorders into adulthood.
The potential inXuence of maternal stress hormones on development and mental health of the offspring
Stress at home experienced during infancy can also lead to greater stress reactivity later in life which then effects confidence and focus in school.
Natural embedding of stress reactivity
More papers upon request. These things are easily changeable.
LikeLike
Ok, I respect that although I don’t agree with many of these opinions. You’re a very weird libertarian though, because I can hardly see these policies being carried out without a very big ass government.
Well, on the flip side I’m very much against gun control, the War on Drugs, pretty much all military interventions abroad, government surveillance (although I made a joke on Pumpkin’s blog about being in favor of the government monitoring people’s Internet porn habits), government student loans, most government funding of the arts and education, much of the typical local-level planning/land use control/zoning practice, the over-complexity of the current US tax code, and government interference in people’s sex lives or behaviors. Typical libertarian positions.
I am for looking for alternative energy sources (I’m somewhat of a global warming skeptic) (although I’m a huge fan of the National Park Service and other efforts to preserve the environment), and mandatory coverage of certain health-issues, limited to emergencies, birth control, Adderall provisioning, cancer treatment, vaccinations, ideopathic disease treatment, and necessary surgical procedures.
LikeLike
I don’t really like discussing US politics, it’s not my business you know, but you’re interesting case lol. So I’ll make an exception.
Gun control: I’m for the complete disarmament of America.
War on Drugs: I have two opposed positions: either strictly penalizing consumption that fuels the drug economy, or fully legalizing drug dealing as a state monopoly and treating drug addiction as a health issue. I didn’t know libertarians were against the war on drugs, though.
Military interventions: it depends on what’s at stake, but most wars I can think of post WWII weren’t fair ones.
Government surveillance: hate it, as well as surveillance by big business.
Government student loans: completely subsidized tertiary education would be better
Government funding of the arts and education: yes, obviously, except for psychology departments lol.
local level planning: I’m agnostic, except for the practices that are low key intended to segregate races.
Tax code: lol, you guys don’t know how a mess it is in France. But yeah, I agree, simple flat taxes would be more efficient.
Government interference in private life: well, if you mean gay marriage, trannies and stuff, the government definitely must prohibit these perversions.
Alternative energy: yup!
Global warming skeptic: come on… Just because it’s “cool” to challenge what the mainstream media says doesn’t mean it’s reasonable.
Mandatory health coverage: Of course, and on a lot more conditions, especially the contagious ones. And, LOL, Adderall is exactly the type of recreational drugs that doesn’t have to be reimbursed by insurance schemes.
LikeLike
Oh, and death penalty: man, that’s sick, that should be abolished.
LikeLike
I’m not sure about capital punishment. But I’m probably for it.
LikeLike
“government student loans, most government funding of the arts and education.”
I get loans, but why education funding? How it’s spent or spending in general?
LikeLike
except for nazis. right (((afrosapiens)))?
LikeLike
what would justice be for haitians residing in france?
the same as that administered to whites in haiti by Jean-Jacques Dessalines.
LikeLike
Maybe, if the Haitians, enslave, torture, kill and rape the French. But I don’t think any form of killing is necessary.
LikeLike
the second amendment was meaningless before the bill of rights was ratified in 1791. by that time the US had already established a standing army.
LikeLike
That’s rich! Afro doesn’t even see the hypocrisy in wanting to ban homos and trannies (not that I’m a huge fan of them either), but being totally OK with 3rd world immigration to the West
LikeLike
I don’t wanna ban them like putting them in jail or on a desert island, I just want the state to not normalize their behaviors.
but being totally OK with 3rd world immigration to the West
Yes, what’s wrong with that? What would you think if you were born on the other side of the future wall? A honest libertarian should support free movement.
LikeLike
Well, if it was up to me, I would have government funding of education up until the 8th grade. After which point, most teenagers (around 2/3rds) would start working, although they may have some intensive training on the side. Their work would pay for any additional training or apprenticeships they would need. The smarter teens would continue to have government subsidized education up until 11th or 12th grade, although they would be encouraged to work, too. And they would eventually pay back the costs of their extended education.
People who wanted to go college would only be able to get government subsidies if they scored above 85-90th percentile on an IQ test, and went through a rigorous interview/psychological evaluation.
LikeLike
That’s more or less how it works in the German Lands, except they’re smart enough to not use IQ tests to decide careers.
LikeLike
libertarianism is weaponized autism.
gman is peepee.
LikeLike
Well, I’m not even sure if I’m really libertarian by everyone’s definitions. You see all the qualifications I added…
LikeLike
to have a political philosophy is stupid. the best government varies over time and place and peoples. (yes peoples afro) norms of reaction again.
my own intuition is that in a genuine democracy (or a more approximate democracy if genuine democracy is impossible) there would be almost unanimous agreement on what the problems are and what the best solutions are. but this doesn’t happen because a small elite prevents it via ideology and misinformation and not publicizing pertinent facts. this is effected in the workplace, through the mass media, and through education. this elite is motivated by a desire to retain its power and wealth. this didn’t work with the election of trump. it did work with the election of macron.
LikeLike
interesting points. I don’t know. Even in a homogenous society you will have differing interests between men and women, and probably the attractive vs. not so attractive. And I would assume class differences would still exist (working class vs. middle vs. lumpenproles). I don’t think it’s just the elite causing these divisions.
LikeLike
free and fair movement means for every haitian that moves to france one frenchman must move to haiti.
LikeLike
the French are not forbidden to go there, it was actually a quite popular tourist destination in the 70s and 80s. It’s a wonderful country, I could live there if I could bring my fiancée and some relatives.
LikeLike
Haiti: That’s where AIDS come from.😠 and they get raped by hurricanes.
Whoever went there other than paedos and homos looking for ez sex?
LikeLike
Hey Sambo, would you like to share your precious insights elsewhere?
LikeLike
Of course, the belief in personal responsibility is genetically hardwired but that doesn’t make it real.
The problem whenever someone tries to attribute a trait to something other than genes, is that the thing “other than genes” is usually also caused by genes. So ultimately everything is genetic, even if the proximate cause isn’t sometimes.
LikeLike
dammit, i wanted to put this comment in the previous comment chain. dammit
LikeLike
No, GondwanaMan, when you understand heritability you can’t say “X trait is genetic”, even if the heritability is 100%. And most variance on psychological traits is not even close to being half explained by genetics. You’ve been told a lot of lies buddy.
LikeLike
“Of course, the belief in personal responsibility is genetically hardwired but that doesn’t make it real.”
Again, beyond behavior being heritable, what actually debunks it?
“The problem whenever someone tries to attribute a trait to something other than genes, is that the thing “other than genes” is usually also caused by genes.”
Example?
“So ultimately everything is genetic, even if the proximate cause isn’t sometimes.”
You are going to have to elaborate because it seems you are describing where in the case SES affects a trait it is “genetic” due to SES being genetic as well.
That doesn;t change the complexity of the relationship, nor does that rules out forms of interventions.
LikeLike
And by it being “real” or not doesn;t make it meaningless as if were to evolve into a culture it could technically play a underlying role. For example, selection for the less conscientious.
LikeLike
Environmental interventions probably work if you monitor individuals 24/7. But I believe that since this is highly difficult to impossible, it’s best to accept that genes are the predominant (or nearly the only) cause of behaviors.
People create their own micro-environments, even when put under strict outside controls. This just seems logical to me but I’ll look for some papers to back me up. Not that that’ll convince you guys, convinced as you are of the environmentalist position.
LikeLike
Environmental interventions probably work if you monitor individuals 24/7. But I believe that since this is highly difficult to impossible, it’s best to accept that genes are the predominant (or nearly the only) cause of behaviors.
Aww, no, this is not what either environmentality or heritability mean, whatsoever.
People create their own micro-environments, even when put under strict outside controls.
No.
This is really absurd. When there is a war, a drought, an epidemic, when you’re adopted in a wealthy family, when your country is ruled by a greedy dictator, when your community is targeted by oppressive laws, when your neighborhood is full of hoodlums… It’s not a micro-environment that your genes created for you. Please…
This just seems logical to me but I’ll look for some papers to back me up
That’s called confirmation bias, mate. But yeah, try that.
LikeLike
“Environmental interventions probably work if you monitor individuals 24/7. But I believe that since this is highly difficult to impossible, it’s best to accept that genes are the predominant (or nearly the only) cause of behaviors.”
Exactly how do you imagine “interventions”. I meant pre-natal and post natal development in which intervention is usually sustained within those realms. If everything else is dependent on genes with near conclusive evidence then I’ll submit.
“People create their own micro-environments, even when put under strict outside controls. This just seems logical to me but I’ll look for some papers to back me up. Not that that’ll convince you guys, convinced as you are of the environmentalist position.”
Okay, I’ve asked for evidence multiple times as I usually don’t take non-specialist statements as they are without studies. Why would I do so if I wasn;t going to be convinced?
Second, I’ve brought up gene-culture coevolution, does that sound like my position is starkly environmentalist?
If you knew of how genes to phenotype actually works among other variables then you wouldn’t be as simplistic as you are in describing it.
LikeLike
no afro the liar. 100% heritability makes “it’s genetic” as certain as the bbc most of the time, just not all of the time. the few times it doesn’t are very few.
LikeLike
No, it tells the currently observed variation in a population is 100% caused by genes, it doesn’t tell whether it would be the same in other environments. Please, don’t make me post this infographics with the plants growing in different quality soils.
LikeLike
heritability is just a correlation, but a perfect correlation strongly suggests cause and effect. just like 72 out of 72 finalists in the olympic 100m suggests cause and effect. just like 100 sexual partners by the age of 24 suggests cause and effect.
for example, using (((afro))) logic smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer. smearing tobacco tar on hairless rats gives them tumors. the incidence of lung cancer among smokers is >10x that among non-smokers. but it’s just a correlation unless (((afro))) had a microscope observing the development of every case of a lung cancer in smokers.
(((afro))) is a a lobbyist for the anti-hbd industry, aka israel.
LikeLike
but it’s just a correlation unless (((afro))) had a microscope observing the development of every case of a lung cancer in smokers.
You’re talking about real, undeniable differences that leave little room for doubt. And before even thinking about cancer, smoking makes teeth yellow, so that’s a sufficient reason for people to stop smoking.
LikeLike
but afro is right that the ONLY psychological trait for which there may be no norm crossing is IQ.
for two reasons.
IQ has by far the highest h^2 of any psychological trait. if it comes to pass that rank on intelligence measures can be predicted well directly from the genome irrespective of culture, society, etc. then the HBDers will be proven right.
something like intelligence can be measured irrespective of the culture, time, or place. but it is not clear what other psychological traits even mean in other circumstances.
it also true that though the evidence is not dispositive, there is also no evidence of norm crossing and that irrespective of time and place (((afro))) would be a gay jew.
LikeLike
I’ve always had an inkling that certain personality traits might play out differently if raised in radically different environments. But who knows? It only seems IQ has been measured with any accuracy/reliability. And of course, even that’s not perfect.
LikeLike
plants growing in different soil is irrelevant afro. why? do you know?
because in any sample in the real world there will be some variation in environment, just not the total variation of the world present and past.
environmental variation + 100% heritable = canalized trait = very high likelihood “it’s genetic”, cause and effect.
name a 100% heritable trait that isn’t genetic. a real one, not a cartoon one.
LikeLike
name a 100% heritable trait that isn’t genetic. a real one, not a cartoon one.
I don’t know any trait that’s 100% heritable.
LikeLike
https://youtube.com/watch?v=fS0OoreV-S4%3Fstart%3D598%26end%3D665
LikeLike
promise me you won’t cry afro.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=qdO_QqATWcg%3Fstart%3D102%26end%3D145
LikeLike
I don’t care, you know what, I’m fast too, I’ve been Normandy’s fastest teen for two years.
LikeLike
And surpassed by another black teen, obviously. My coach said black men don’t run, they fly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
afro can’t stop lying.
in reality he’s a 55 year old israeli.
LikeLike
now you’re a teen?
100 sex partners by age 19?
LikeLike
I used to be a teen yes. Didn’t you?
LikeLike
You’re previous comment implied you’re still a teen. “Have been” = “in the past and still am”. English 101
LikeLike
I stand corrected.
LikeLike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Haitians
LikeLike
black men can run faster and jump higher for the same reason that black men don’t have calves. bill cosby has a routine about it.
LikeLike
blacks now do very well in bodybuilding. this tells me that white dominance of power lifting is not due to blacks’ lack of interest.
put a white powerlifter’s muscles on a black skeleton and beat bolt.
LikeLike
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
LikeLike
“blacks now do very well in bodybuilding. this tells me that white dominance of power lifting is not due to blacks’ lack of interest.
put a white powerlifter’s muscles on a black skeleton and beat bolt.”
Wow, like none of this follows. It’s been explained that the biological reasons for Blacks and bodybuilding are due to having lower levels of fat compared to Eurasians, having a closer tendency to being mesomorphic.
I guess you mean that bodybuilding and powerlifting are somewhat similar in terms of presentation, but technically the training aims are different comparing each other.
http://www.pwnfitness.com/2013/05/16/how-strong-professional-bodybuilders/
As for muscles and skeleton, again, I refer to my previous comment on the matter.
“Care to clarify? Saying “powerlifters muscles” could either mean their muscle fiber type or their resulting shape from training.
In either case, likely not. Fiber-wise they would be good distance runners but not the best sprinters.
Unless you specifically mean their Type 2 variant (with would be the explosive aspect of powerlifting) then you may be right giving the aerobic advantage but that would still prove RR right in the end about the function of the two types of fibers.
Training-shape wise no because of that bulk likely making the limbs stiffer and less flexible.”
I also want to clarify that the aerobic advantage for powerlifting type two maybe better for longer distances in sprinting than shorter distances, it would be an interesting test.
LikeLike
i don’t? i do!
me in BGI study. you not. sad!
another example of how culture can produce great athletes: maravich.
maravich is the last white nba season point leader.
he’s still the best college player ever.
his dad was like tiger woods’s dad. he raised pistol pete to be a great baller. how many blacks raise themselves to be great ballers when afaletes are the only other blacks they have to look up to?
interestingly again, showing the yuge overlap of ability, the second highest vertical leap ever recorded at the nba combine was made by a white player who now plays for the blazers.
Pat Connaughton.
LikeLike
Meaningless. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
LikeLike
let’s see who else doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
the entire staff at “speed camp”, strength coaches and phds in biomechanics, the authors of the study from howard + duke.
give it rest guido. you’re a fraud.
LikeLike
yes!
here’s the ONLY thing where i “don’t know what” i’m “talking about”…except i did…5 years ago…
what do i mean?
i mean now there are lots of great black powerlifters.
but there weren’t ANY only 5 years ago. right?
AND i “don’t know what” i’m “talking about” regarding the fibers used in powerlifting…supposedly. that is, the three powerlifts are usually performed slowly.
but the olympic lifts are still dominated by caucasoids and they’re still explosive movements.
LikeLike
To Ian,
First, do you have statistics on these “many black powerlifters”?
Second, did you forget how RR did account for explosiveness in his article about fibers in Olympic lifters, about how that was aerobic IIa fibers as well as more Type1 fibers than Sprinters?
You are still just repeating points that prove nothing.
LikeLike
if they were iia then sprinters wouldn’t be breathing heavily and lifters would. the opposite of the truth.
at this point it’s clear that rr believes pro-wrestling is real.
sad!
LikeLike
Look who can’t comprehend english now.
What I said about LIFTERS having more IIa, not sprinters-
“Second, did you forget how RR did account for explosiveness in his article about fibers in Olympic lifters, about how that was aerobic IIa fibers as well as more Type1 fibers than Sprinters?”
So you are just reaching again.
LikeLike
Sincerely,
BGI Cognitive Genomics Lab
Building No.11│Beishan Industrial Zone│Yantian District│Shenzhen 518083│China
认知基因组学 │ http://www.cog-genomics.org │contact@cog-genomics.org
ST-RM, BGI
LikeLike
Don’t care. Provide references for your claims.
LikeLike
i don’t need to. you have provided NONE for yours.
and whenever you do provide references you misinterpret them.
this is all expected as you think john cena and neil degrasse tyson are influential people. pathetic.
your people left s italy because s italy was shit. they made it shit. it’s still shit today. yet you deny it. sad!
you’re just a another pathetic guido from nj.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=zW87tVnDKIU%26feature%3Dplayer_embedded%3Fstart%3D460%26end473
http://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/notre-dames-pat-connaughton-records-44-inch-vertical-at-nba-combine/
ZERO REFERENCES SHOWING THAT SPRINTING SPEED CAN BE PREDICTED IN LEAN SUBJECTS VIA MUSCLE BIOPSY…
YOU’RE A PATHETIC EXCUSE FOR AN ITALIAN.
YOU’RE NOT WHITE.
SAD!
LikeLike
“i don’t need to. you have provided NONE for yours.”
No sources on what claims? He certainly did research on fiber type, ability, and racial differences.
Even if otherwise, that doesn;t make your claims anymore verified as his.
“and whenever you do provide references you misinterpret them.”
Explain as this is the first time you have ever claimed this.
“this is all expected as you think john cena and neil degrasse tyson are influential people. pathetic.
your people left s italy because s italy was shit. they made it shit. it’s still shit today. yet you deny it. sad!
you’re just a another pathetic guido from nj.
http://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/notre-dames-pat-connaughton-records-44-inch-vertical-at-nba-combine/”
What’s sad is that you have to use cheap shots at Southern Italians clearly because you know your own logic on racial athletic ability is so shallow that it wouldn;t leave any impression by itself.
“ZERO REFERENCES SHOWING THAT SPRINTING SPEED CAN BE PREDICTED IN LEAN SUBJECTS VIA MUSCLE BIOPSY…”
YOU’RE A PATHETIC EXCUSE FOR AN ITALIAN.
YOU’RE NOT WHITE.
SAD!”
What’s sad is that such an investigation is worthless because the population we are dealing with are athletes who TRAIN between races and it’s clearly understood WITHIN ATHLETES what each fiber type’s function is and how it varies by race.
LikeLike
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzMvXOxvY3Y
LikeLike
“When you hit the ground harder your body moves faster”. AKA explosive strength AKA fast twitch muscle fibers.
“Fast” as in the amount of energy that can be generated in time, not fast as in reflexes.
If that’s how you interpreted “fast twitch fibers”, well, your name says it all.
LikeLike
you’re ridiculous peepee. is anyone on this blog not peepee?
explosive strength = same as used by weightlifters. the clean and jerk and the snatch are not slow movements.
at top speed sprinters cannot push against the ground.
obviously you’ve never sprinted.
https://blog.smu.edu/research/2014/08/25/key-to-speed-elite-sprinters-are-unlike-other-athletes-deliver-forceful-punch-to-ground/
it’s mechanics and the nervous system not genetically determined twitch fiber composition. this composition changes with the specific exercise.
who’s breathing harder after he’s performed? a weightlifter or a sprinter? the so called fast twitch fibers are 100% exhausted by 50m whether you’re usain bolt or phil78.
ooo! ooo! i know. but y’all are just so f—ing ignunt it’s sad!
LikeLike
“you’re ridiculous peepee. is anyone on this blog not peepee?
explosive strength = same as used by weightlifters. the clean and jerk and the snatch are not slow movements.”
I’ve acknowledge this and so has RR, if you actually read his argument that I quoted in depth you would know that this refutes nothing. They use a different type of Fast twitch muscle for aerobic potential as well as more slow twitch fibers for endurance.
“at top speed sprinters cannot push against the ground.
obviously you’ve never sprinted.”
You obviously didn’t fully comprehend the video about how speed is influenced by how hard they push on the ground as the only thing you took was the point on stride speed.
“http://speedendurance.com/2013/08/23/questions-answers-on-peter-weyands-research/
https://blog.smu.edu/research/2014/08/25/key-to-speed-elite-sprinters-are-unlike-other-athletes-deliver-forceful-punch-to-ground/”
From source one.
“However, as complex as the details of motor control, force production and delivery are during sprinting, a simple, informative and valuable take-home message exists for coaches – speed is all about hitting the ground hard and fast.”
And source two says they don’t “bounce”, not that they don’t push. The very title says they indeed do push.
“The new findings indicate that the secret to elite sprinting speeds lies in the distinct limb dynamics sprinters use to elevate ground forces upon foot-ground impact.
‘Our new studies show that these elite sprinters don’t use their legs to just bounce off the ground as most other runners do,” said human biomechanics expert and lead author on the studies Ken Clark, a researcher in the SMU Locomotor Performance Laboratory. “The top sprinters have developed a wind-up and delivery mechanism to augment impact forces. Other runners do not do so.’ ”
“it’s mechanics and the nervous system not genetically determined twitch fiber composition. this composition changes with the specific exercise.”
None of your studies directly refuted the role of twitch fibers, which of course would be a given as the researchers would likely know that different fibers have different functions, and none of what you said refutes RR argument which INCLUDES biomechanics.
“who’s breathing harder after he’s performed? a weightlifter or a sprinter? the so called fast twitch fibers are 100% exhausted by 50m whether you’re usain bolt or phil78.”
That’s because, if you paid attention to RR’s research, they are anaerobic which ties into different muscle and lung capacity qualities of distance runners.
Not only that, but a weightlifter also uses a variant of fast twitch fibers that has greater aerobic potential that sprinters, which ties into the endurance function of weightlifting after the jerk.
“ooo! ooo! i know. but y’all are just so f—ing ignunt it’s sad!”
You are the only sad person who can’t read an opponents’ argument in full, lacks a habit of citing sources more than having tantrums, and does the very fault, misinterpreting sources, as he accuses his opponent.
LikeLike
http://athletics.wikia.com/wiki/Type_II_Muscle_Fiber
It is possible that a fibre might be transformed from Type IIB to Type IIAB to Type IIA with exercise training.[3]
Type IIb fast-twitch fibers, or fast glycolytic fibres (also known as Type IIx), are recruited for very short-duration high-intensity bursts of power such as maximal and near-maximal lifts and short sprints.[6]
LikeLike
RR already said how changing variants WITHIN a fiber type, what you show all being within type 2, is possible. I’ve explained this to you many time before.
Again, you proved nothing. Your own emboldened quote refutes what you said about sprinting and twitch fibers by trying to make the same comparison .
As for Fiber type, see here how elite lifters use more IIa
“Type IIa fibers possess more aerobic potential than IIx, therefore, power lifters have a higher proportion of IIa fibers compared to IIx fibers. It should also be noted that powerlifters have the same amount of type I fibers as the general population (Fry et al, 2003a), so knowing this fact, since blacks have a lower proportion of type I muscle fibers as noted in Caeser and Hunter (2015), this explains why there are very few black power lifters: they have the opposite type II fiber type while having less type I fiber.
Furthermore, Olympic lifters also use a higher percentage of type IIa fibers (Fry et al, 2003b). This also explains the lower amount of blacks in weight lifting as well. Fiber types don’t explain everything, but at elite levels, they do mean a lot and looking at the racial variation explains racial differences in elite sporting competition.”
LikeLike
maybe this will shut you up once and for all. if it doesn’t then you’re just a moron.
former world’s fastest man asafa powell: Powell represented his school Charlemont High at the ISSA High School Championships. On 11 April he finished fourth in the Class 1 200 m, in 23.07 with a −1.7 m/s headwind. On 13 April, he finished third in his heat of the Boy’s Class 1 100 m, recording 11.45 with a −2.3 m/s headwind. Neither time recorded in the heats was quick enough to advance him to the next round of competition.[10]
at age 17 powell could only run the 100 in slightly less than 11.45 (wind resistance). there are guys i went to school with who were faster.
i don’t have the source, but the biomechanics professor told me that borzov was not fast. he was selected for his build and made fast. he was selected at 14. his 100m time was 13s. i ran 12.00 at age 14.
LikeLike
“maybe this will shut you up once and for all. if it doesn’t then you’re just a moron.”
Who’s the moron when one uses two secondhand case studies to prove a point that he not even consistent about.
You try to either argue that fast twitch don;t influence sprinting to Fats twicth not being innate or immutable.
“former world’s fastest man asafa powell: Powell represented his school Charlemont High at the ISSA High School Championships. On 11 April he finished fourth in the Class 1 200 m, in 23.07 with a −1.7 m/s headwind. On 13 April, he finished third in his heat of the Boy’s Class 1 100 m, recording 11.45 with a −2.3 m/s headwind. Neither time recorded in the heats was quick enough to advance him to the next round of competition.[10]
at age 17 powell could only run the 100 in slightly less than 11.45 (wind resistance). there are guys i went to school with who were faster.”
So? Without any physiological data on him to compare all well can say is that he trained better later on.
Which we would both know by now had you used the full quote.
“Powell again represented Charlemont High at the ISSA High School Boy And Girls Championships, finishing seventh in the Class 1 100 m Final. Recognizing some talent, coach Stephen Francis started coaching Powell one week later.[11] The coach looked for a way to give the tall teenager a faster start. After searching the island, Stephen Francis found a 100 m stretch of road with a 10% slope and trains his runners on that.[8] Powell vindicated Francis by winning the Boys Under-20 100 m event in 10.50 seconds at the JAAA National Championships on 22 June.[12]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asafa_Powell
Wow, rookies can be sloppy….how enlightening.
“i don’t have the source, but the biomechanics professor told me that borzov was not fast. he was selected for his build and made fast. he was selected at 14. his 100m time was 13s. i ran 12.00 at age 14.”
And this only proves little beyond that build alone determined little on sprinting ability until training increases.
Here’s where you shot yourself in the foot, if biomechanics, your crutch, doesn’t determine sprinting ability in novices then why would you hold fiber type to that same standard?
LikeLike
so what happened between age 17 and age 19 when powell ran 10.5?
did he get more fast twitch fibers?
LikeLike
Wow, strawman. Neither I nor RR argued that changes can;t be made through training, we only argued certain innate factors in sprinting ability and they can define the limits of change.
I could say the same thing about sprinting ability, did his biomechanics change?
LikeLike
you’re just digging your hole deeper. know two things that increase fast twitch fraction? prolonged weightlessness, being in space, and paralysis.
In examining the literature, I was able to find extreme proportions in sprinters: from 93.7% of fast-twitch fibres (the same as a leopard!) for a certain “A.I.”, a 26 year-old Japanese athlete (1.74m for 68kg), who had run 50m in 5.8 seconds, against only 31% for a sprinter in the West German national team (after Fekete, 1987). If we turn our attention to endurance specialists, we notice an equally wide range: Fink’s 1977 study of US long distance runners gives 2% for Gary Tuttle (2h 15min in the marathon) compared to 50% for his teammate Don Kardong (4th in the marathon in the 1976 Olympics in 2h 11mon 16s)* Mary Decker, World 1500m and 3000m champion in 1983 was only shown to have 35% slow-twitch fibres, i.e. slightly fewer than Merlene Ottey!
LikeLike
“you’re just digging your hole deeper. know two things that increase fast twitch fraction? prolonged weightlessness, being in space, and paralysis.
In examining the literature, I was able to find extreme proportions in sprinters: from 93.7% of fast-twitch fibres (the same as a leopard!) for a certain “A.I.”, a 26 year-old Japanese athlete (1.74m for 68kg), who had run 50m in 5.8 seconds, against only 31% for a sprinter in the West German national team (after Fekete, 1987). If we turn our attention to endurance specialists, we notice an equally wide range: Fink’s 1977 study of US long distance runners gives 2% for Gary Tuttle (2h 15min in the marathon) compared to 50% for his teammate Don Kardong (4th in the marathon in the 1976 Olympics in 2h 11mon 16s)* Mary Decker, World 1500m and 3000m champion in 1983 was only shown to have 35% slow-twitch fibres, i.e. slightly fewer than Merlene Ottey!”
No I did not. All you did was show individuals with different fiber frequencies. not a study on converting type two to type 1 or vice versa.
LikeLike
Type II fibers can be trained to be similar to type I, but they won’t be the same. Mugabe, educate yourself here. Read this.
Black-White Differences in Muscle Fiber and Its Role in Disease and Obesity
LikeLike
Further, the example found here just point out examples of extreme cases.
It does report larger sample sizes not showing a pattern in performance,
LikeLike
Things that the general/elite population doesn’t need to worry about. Good to know.
LikeLike
my only point is that genetically influenced twitch fiber composition does NOT explain black dominance in the sprints. this is what afro claimed. and he’s wrong.
the facts i have adduced PROVE it.
another fact: according to bouchard, 25% of whites have <= 35% slow twitch. that’s plenty of whites to be elite sprinters if fiber fraction explained much. bouchard estimated that 15% of measured composition differences are due to error, 40% to environment, and 45% to genes. but the extent of environmental influence depends on the range of environments. those who train as sprinters or weightlifter may have much more environmental influence. furthermore, it’s not just a question of fiber fractions, but the size of the respective fibers. someone can increase the size of his fast twitch fibers without necessarily increasing their number by converting type 1 fibers and it will have the same effect.
when i was at speed camp i was told that olympic weightlifters despite their weight could run 100m in 11s. maybe this too was made up by the supposed experts. there is also the story that shane hamman could dunk. it has been claimed that olympic weightlifters are faster than elite sprinters over short distances. it is also obvious that whites can play soccer, and the reason for this is that the distances over which speed is important in soccer is usually shorter than any sprint and whites and blacks are more or less equal over these distances. manfred kokot held the 50m record forever, until bailey beat it by jumping the gun. armin hary is still the most naturally gifted starter there has ever been.
if RR expects all facts to be recorded in and easily found in google scholar he’s expecting too much. youtube has lots of vids of short guys doing power squats until they can dunk. it’s the same fibers used in jumping as in the acceleration phase of the sprints. the maximum speed then depends on mechanics, coordination, and on strength vs weight. it also depends on the right kind of strength not just strength per se. strength in the right muscles.
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1017631&d=1196957891
LikeLike
“my only point is that genetically influenced twitch fiber composition does NOT explain black dominance in the sprints. this is what afro claimed. and he’s wrong.
the facts i have adduced PROVE it.”
Hopefully you try to pain a consistent picture this time.
“another fact: according to bouchard, 25% of whites have <= 35% slow twitch. that’s plenty of whites to be elite sprinters if fiber fraction explained much.”
Not unless we compare to the Black percentages at that percentage. These whites can be sprinters based on the fiber type requirements, it just doesn’t negate much.
” bouchard estimated that 15% of measured composition differences are due to error, 40% to environment, and 45% to genes. but the extent of environmental influence depends on the range of environments. those who train as sprinters or weightlifter may have much more environmental influence.”
Explain “more environmental influence”. Do you mean much/most of their resulting fractions result from training? If so they still had a stronger foundation to get that far.
The percentages themselves seems plausible, I just want to see the literature elaborating on the relationship of genes and environment you are talking about.
” furthermore, it’s not just a question of fiber fractions, but the size of the respective fibers. someone can increase the size of his fast twitch fibers without necessarily increasing their number by converting type 1 fibers and it will have the same effect.”
Sure, but even consider the effect of training on both size and fraction on fibers, exactly how does that translate between two people with different genetic fractions?
You are only talking about mutablity rather than how it influences two groups.
“when i was at speed camp i was told that olympic weightlifters despite their weight could run 100m in 11s. maybe this too was made up by the supposed experts.”
Without a study or record of somesort it doesn’t hold that much weight, made up or not.
“there is also the story that shane hamman could dunk. it has been claimed that olympic weightlifters are faster than elite sprinters over short distances.”
Regarding the latter claim, so? That’s a conditional scenario if you are going to hamper distance as a factor.
” it is also obvious that whites can play soccer, and the reason for this is that the distances over which speed is important in soccer is usually shorter than any sprint and whites and blacks are more or less equal over these distances. manfred kokot held the 50m record forever, until bailey beat it by jumping the gun. armin hary is still the most naturally gifted starter there has ever been.”
Again, conditional scenarios in difdferent contexts, especially going to something as variable as soccer from the raw nature of sprinting.
And with that said, no one said whites can’t sprint or apply the same ability in different scenarios.
“if RR expects all facts to be recorded in and easily found in google scholar he’s expecting too much. youtube has lots of vids of short guys doing power squats until they can dunk. it’s the same fibers used in jumping as in the acceleration phase of the sprints. the maximum speed then depends on mechanics, coordination, and on strength vs weight. it also depends on the right kind of strength not just strength per se. strength in the right muscles.”
So because short guys can transform their muscles to be able to dunk translates to other more advantageous biomechanics being irrelevant?
This actually emphasizes the role of muscle type (which was the whole point we were arguing about) over your body mechanics (you repetitive crutch thst RR accounted for from the start).
So you seemed to only be pushing, on average, the multiple varables in ability and their mutuability.
Nowhere did you refute RR point on twitch fibers, the role of training versus genes between individuals with different dispoitions, or refuting racial differences in fractions themselves.
LikeLike
the coach behind the jamaican sprinters, stephen francis, said that whites simply don’t work as hard and aren’t willing to suffer.
the first jamaican great was don quarrie and in the 1980 200m final he was beaten by two white guys. the s italian mennea won. the scott 100m champ came in second.
if mennea had the muscles of jamaican sprinters he might still be winning today. like lemaitre he was scrawny.
maybe it’s just my fiber composition, but i doubt it. if you’ve run the 100m you will know that after about 60m it’s not a sprint anymore…it’s just really fast jogging. the point is speed endurance, maintaining the speed you’ve built up, not increasing it. at maximum speed your spikes hit the ground like a punch in the face. it’s impossible for anyone to accelerate when his foot is only on the ground for .08s.
LikeLike
“the coach behind the jamaican sprinters, stephen francis, said that whites simply don’t work as hard and aren’t willing to suffer.”
Source?
“the first jamaican great was don quarrie and in the 1980 200m final he was beaten by two white guys. the s italian mennea won. the scott 100m champ came in second.
if mennea had the muscles of jamaican sprinters he might still be winning today. like lemaitre he was scrawny.
maybe it’s just my fiber composition, but i doubt it. if you’ve run the 100m you will know that after about 60m it’s not a sprint anymore…it’s just really fast jogging. the point is speed endurance, maintaining the speed you’ve built up, not increasing it. at maximum speed your spikes hit the ground like a punch in the face. it’s impossible for anyone to accelerate when his foot is only on the ground for .08s.”
That’s actually consistent with RR point on Eurasians and East Africans with endurance runnning due to muscle fibers and aerobic respiration.
LikeLike
it’s even more true for the 200m. after 60m explosiveness has nothing to do with it.
mennea’s record lasted from 1979 to 1996. ask yourself how much faster mennea would’ve been if he’d roided. answer: a lot faster.
or at least could squat 600lbs like asafa powell. lemaitre is the fastest non-black ever. think of how much faster he could be.
LikeLike
See my other comment.
If you see higher white representation at longer distances, where traits of endurance running come into play, that again verifies his point.
LikeLike
it is significant that lemaitre’s best time would have been good enough to win the all black final of the 1992 olympics.
in life as in sports when one group reaches a certain % it soon reaches 100%. tipping point.
this happens in neighborhoods in the US after a certain % black.
it happens in rc seminaries after a certain % gay.
the non-blacks and non-afro-sexuals leave. they feel uncomfortable.
there’s also racism…against whites. this was another point made at speed camp by the experts RR scoffs at. i was told that whites would never be drafted for corner back or safety.
in the nba, american whites are discriminated against. foreign whites aren’t as much. now there are 2x as many whites from abroad as native whites, and the rest of the world doesn’t give a sh-t about basketball.
so i expect the 72 out of 72 is explained in part by non-genetic factors.
LikeLike
“it is significant that lemaitre’s best time would have been good enough to win the all black final of the 1992 olympics.”
Not impossible but proves little on the nature of overall representation.
“in life as in sports when one group reaches a certain % it soon reaches 100%. tipping point.”
Citations of “100%” taking place?
“this happens in neighborhoods in the US after a certain % black.
it happens in rc seminaries after a certain % gay.”
Now you are just extrapolating without going into detail, looking for any other reason outside of genetics to explain it.
“the non-blacks and non-afro-sexuals leave. they feel uncomfortable.
there’s also racism…against whites. this was another point made at speed camp by the experts RR scoffs at. i was told that whites would never be drafted for corner back or safety.”
While possible, that doesn’t diswcount known racial differences that would be relevant.
“in the nba, american whites are discriminated against. foreign whites aren’t as much. now there are 2x as many whites from abroad as native whites, and the rest of the world doesn’t give a sh-t about basketball.
so i expect the 72 out of 72 is explained in part by non-genetic factors.”
So you really are just looking for any reason, huh? If you bothered to outline all of your arguments from the start you might’ve had some credibility left at this point.
LikeLike
imagine a new event. there’s no gun and no other racers. the clock starts at the push, not at the gun. it stops when the chest hits the line…at 20m.
i predict that such an event would be dominated by…whites or ne asians.
LikeLike
If you are going to extrapolate again, not disproving anything stated by RR again, then you might as well state why?
The role of explosiveness at the first instance would contradict your previous examples of Whites beating Blacks due to endurance.
The only reason I could think of would be the possible difference in reaction time which actually correlates with LONGER sprints.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/24748668.2008.11868436
Or the fact that Eurasians have longer torso giving them the edge for “chest first” had longer torso not inherently hamper sprinting ability.
LikeLike
hector bellerin is faster than usain bolt.
soccer’s surface isn’t track’s surface.
the speed soccer requires is not perfectly straight.
the length over which speed is important in soccer is shorter than any track distance.
hector bellerin is faster than usain bolt.
LikeLike
“Obviously, Bellerin wouldn’t beat Bolt in a 100m race – if he could, then he’d be in the wrong sport.
But there’s no denying that Bellerin’s 40m time is quicker than Bolt’s first 40m of that famous world record race.
According to biomechanical analysis that was published by the IAAF after the race, Bolt clocked a time of 4.64 seconds for his first 40m – 0.23 seconds slower than Bellerin.
There are caveats, though – Bolt’s time comes from a* standing start*, and he generally doesn’t hit top speed until about 40m into a race. Bellerin’s time, on the other hand, may well have come from a running start, which would obviously leave Bolt playing catch up.
It’s also worth noting that Bolt ran the next 40m of that race in an absurdly quick 3.28 seconds, which we doubt Bellerin would be able to contend with.
We’d still like to see them race, though – but perhaps only if they both had a ball at their feet…”
Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2015/11/06/arsenals-hector-bellerin-is-actually-quicker-than-usain-bolt-over-40-metres-5485755/#ixzz4rqPIw3Zm
Look who’s the moron now who didn;t consider all the factors.
LikeLike
obviously i was not very fast…except i was…just over much shorter distances.
i have a very long torso and very short legs for my 6’1″. this is great for short bursts of speed from a stand still…bad for maximum speed or the 100m.
i hit a wall at about 50m. i’d lead the race then die.
when i played soccer there was a joke, “what’s the fastest thing in the world?” answer: “mugabe chasing a soccer ball.”
LikeLike
Okay, this is somewhat what I thought.
Long torso, small but powerful legs, basically like a torpedo. In that case probably the stockier among Europeans.
So eastern euros, Alpine Greeks and Italians, and hunter gatherer body types like Berids.
LikeLike
BS, I was excellent at both soccer and sprinting and everybody said it was for the opposite reason: 6’2″, endless legs, sick muscular power.
LikeLike
i bear a permanent wound…
a wound which resulted from my short legs. it had happened once before on level ground in the 50yd dash. but i was wearing jeans.
when at speed camp…
one of the methods used for increasing speed is downhill racing. they took us through all the methods, proved and merely hypothetical.
i lost control and crashed.
i suffered a severe AC separation.
there was no surgery, but my left shoulder will never be the same. it still hurts occasionally. and it’s still visible. not just in the x-ray. my left shoulder “tents” a little.
LikeLike
but yes!
with the right training i could have been an elite indoor sprinter.
that is, 50m or 60m.
not kidding.
LikeLike
it’s sad how rr can’t handle the truth.
LikeLike
Sicilians have a certain swag not found in other whites. So it’s clear they have black admixture. Think of all the famous musicians and entertainers from Sicily (or Calabria). Like Sinatra.
Plus they like grabbing their crotches like blacks do so they must have YUGE dicks.
LikeLike
the purpose of this blog is twofold.
first. italian supremacism.
second. to prove that southern italians are italians and not haitians.
LikeLike
now black lesbians…peepee.
let’s see how retarded you are.
theory: bolt wins because he’s 6’5″ and he has fast twitch fibers.
are all black italians gay?
fastest 200m when reaction time is subtracted is NOT from bolt.
it’s from his AT LEAST half foot shorter training partner yahan blake.
that’s right…
yahan blake is the fastest over 200m ever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2–d9bz1jLg
LikeLike
i looked it up. how accurate? how would i know.
but armin hary’s 10.0 30m split was faster than bolt’s 9.58 30m split.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zW-kwt-LzcYJ:speedendurance.com/2013/04/09/fastest-10-meter-splits/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
i guess hary didn’t have enough fast twitch fibers to run 9.58.
jesus christ. give it a rest. y’all have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
sad!
LikeLike
Yeah, faster by 0.08 seconds. Now run a significance test to see how chance could effect that…I think we both know the answer and how “sad” this latest attempt was. It’s also worth noting this little detail about Harry’s being hand timed and not electronically like Bolt’s.
This is no way effect the legitimacy of twitch fibers.
LikeLike
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Ou2bXtDtYjAJ:speedendurance.com/2011/12/15/armin-hary-and-the-famous-10-second-100m-world-record/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
LikeLike
here are the 10m split times for all world records since ben johnson’s.
as you can see armin hary is still the fastest to 30m, and it isn’t even close.
give up. the reason why negroes dominate the 100m has 100% NOTHING to do with twitch fibers.
LikeLike
Again, the difference between his and bolts is 0,08 of a second. Accounting for hand timed errors, and different opportunities in training, pointing out a small difference at a part of the race proves little of the general trends.
If you actually share differences in biomechanics between two subjects and compare what gives one the edge over the other, with fiber twitches accounted for or application to observed patterns in elite sprinters, you prove nothing.
LikeLike
what else?
hand timing might be faster or slower. i expect it is less accurate.
hary ran on cinders in spikes that weighed 100lbs so to say.
remarkable, but this vid claims that a pb 9.92 sprinter ran 11.00s under the same conditions as owens ran in 1932.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jas9ff0hdFI
i guess andre lost his fast twitch fibers when he ran with owens’s gear.
just plain sad!
LikeLike
So? All that says is that different training conditions during different times. Harry likely didn’t wear cinders just for that race, he obviously trained with them.
If you are dealing with people that went under different training conditions you can find differences even if one has a genetic advantage.
You have yet again failed to invalidate twitch fibers.
LikeLike
how does one wear cinders?
go back. read everything i’ve written 3 more times. agree with all of it.
this is my recommendation.
LikeLike
Meant to say train on the same cinders and ran on the same shoes during training,
Aside from that correction, I’m not “agreeing” with anything you said as my point still stands.
Until you observe things from a comparative perspective of white versus black sprinters in representative samples on physiology or other conditions that somehow directly usurp the influence of fiber differences you aren’t any closer to being persuasive.
LikeLike
but owens never set the world record.
he tied it. it had been set by the white man charlie paddock, “the california canonball”, in 1924 over 110 yards, slightly more than 100m. it was not broken until 1960 by armin hary in zurich. 36 years.
LikeLike
And are you aware of how few black sprinters there were until then?
LikeLike
And in turn, Armin’s record lasted only for 4 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_metres_at_the_Olympics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Hayes
LikeLike
Did a background check on Armin, in colored photos seem seemed pretty darker pigmented in the eyes and hair for a german.
Doing some research my suspicions were correct. He was southern german, and have a convex nose with a meso- or brachycephalic head based on what i could tell on profile shots in his standing start.
Either Dinaric or Keltic-Nordid, either one would be pretty lean.
LikeLike
the unassisted world record in the bench press and in the squat are held by blacks. the deadlift record is held by an icelander.
LikeLike
Not current records in “raw” (unassisted) bench press and squat.
https://barbend.com/heaviest-raw-bench-presses/
Henderson has been surpassed for a while and is so far the only “black” recently to break that record.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progression_of_the_bench_press_world_record#Unequipped_.28without_bench_shirt.29
Same applies to Ray Williams.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squat_(exercise)#World_records
Looking at their faces, lower arm length, and cephalic index, they seem to be like Mark Henry in that they are Palaenegrids, stocky types from the Nigeria/Cameroon region into Central Africa compared to West African Sudanids. They usually have short heads as well, paralleling the differences between typical lean sprinter types and lifting types in Europe.
LikeLike
There aren’t many blacks in the Olympic throwing events like discus, javelin, etc. I think recently a Trinidadian and Kenyan did well.
LikeLike
Indeed, and Iceland is a tiny island of 300,000 inhabitants. Just like Jamaica dominates sprinting with just 2 million people.
LikeLike
https://www.powerliftingwatch.com/records/raw/world
my source disagrees.
LikeLike
To Ian,
The bench press data in your source is outdated, Scott’s raw 713 beats Henderson’s 710 in 1997.
As for Williams, I stand corrected. Technically it’s still plausible since we know two things, that type 2 muscles can change between variants, muscle fiber types can gain new characteristics of the other type, and that he has biomechanics to aid him in continuous training to achieve that.
LikeLike