NotPoliticallyCorrect

Home » Race Realism » Pumpkinperson on the history of Black Africa

Pumpkinperson on the history of Black Africa

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

Join 125 other followers

Follow me on Twitter

Charles Darwin

Denis Noble

JP Rushton

Richard Lynn

L:inda Gottfredson

Goodreads

By Afrosapiens, 3650 words.

This article is a point by point refutation of Pumpkin Person’s extremely inaccurate and unscientific depiction of Black Africa’s history based on astrophysicist Michael Hart’s book Understanding Human History. While it might sound like a waste of time to give any attention to the writings of a clueless blogger, I found it was the perfect occasion to share the main specialist views on civilizational development and Sub-Saharan African history that many are still unaware of.

Although a couple of our commenters have been citing a lot of the accomplishments of black Africa, Dr. Michael H. Hart paints a very different picture in his book Understanding Human History.

To begin with, we have to question the value of Michael Hart’s account of human history when we know that this man is only an astrophysicist with no specialist background in history or archeology of any region of the world. Aside from Hart’s blatant incompetence in these areas of study, I can’t fail to mention his close links with the white nationalist movement and his well known association with American Renaissance. Knowing this, it is hard to believe that an incompetent writer with known ideological leanings would have produced an objective description of human history.

Hart’s book was published in 2007 so some of his claims may no longer be accepted as the archeological record has since become more complete and politically correct.

Pumpkin Person needs to elaborate on how the archaeological record could be “politically correct” or incorrect. Archeology is factual, not political. Either way, Michael Hart’s claims were wrong in 2007 and are just as wrong as of 2017 as his account of African history is in contradiction with the earliest reports by explorers of the continent.

For starters, Hart claims that farming was not practiced in Africa until it was brought to Egypt by Southwest Asians in 6000 BC and from there it spread to Ethiopia, Sudan and then West Africa by 3000 BC.  Central and Southern Africa however, were still living in the paleolithic until 1000 BC, according to Hart.

This claim is obviously wrong and unsupported by genetic or botanical evidence. Pumpkin Person, doesn’t understand that societies do not invent “farming”, instead populations domesticate specific plants. The first plants were domesticated in West Africa around 5000BCE, these crops (sorghum, African rice, pearl millet, yam, fonio) are direct descendants of their local wild ancestors and were not grown in the Middle East and North Africa. This fact makes an introduction from those regions impossible, especially since transaharan communication was impossible before the domestication of the camel in the horn of Africa or southern Arabia around 3000 BCE. An other fact that Pumpkin Person seems to ignore is that populations do not transition from hunting and gathering to farming just from being exposed to agricultural populations, foreign crops are instead adopted by sedentary horticulturalist populations that have already domesticated non-grain plants. For this reason, the most common mode of diffusion of farming is not contact with another population but migration of the farmers themselves, which is why agriculture did not reach the southern half of Africa until the farming Bantu populations of West African origin gradually settled the region.

By 600 BC iron smelting occurred in Nigeria. Hart writes “It seems probable that knowledge of iron work had been introduced from the North or brought from the eastern Sudan.”  Introduced or brought in by Caucasoids?

Once again, the external introduction hypothesis is unsupported by any sort of evidence, especially since West Africans started smelting copper in the Sahel by 2000 BCE, which was the first stage of metal working development before iron-metallurgy. Evidence from metal working and crop domestication confirm West Africa’s status as a place of independent transition from the paleolithic to the neolithic.

Hart notes that prior to 1500,  sub-Saharan Africa could be divided into two wildly different sections.  The exposed zone and the secluded zone.  The exposed zone was all the parts that were in contact with Caucasoids, such as West Africa, Ethiopia, Somalia, small remote parts of the Indian Ocean colonized by Arab traders, and parts of the Atlantic coast where Portuguese traders  had set up shop.  The rest of sub-Saharan Africa was the secluded zone.  A terrifying region roughly twice the size of Europe.

Being familiar with African historiography, I was very surprised to learn about this pretended division between a “secluded” and an “exposed” zone marking the history of the continent before 1500. Such a division never appears in the literature and searching for it on the Internet only led me to Pumpkin Person’s article, which implies that this distinction only exists in Pumpkin Person and Michael Hart’s heads. Also, it’d be interesting to find an actual map of the pretended “secluded zone” as well as a scientific translation of its “terrifying” character.

Nevertheless, it is true that African regions that were more exposed to the outside world benefited from the exchange of goods, knowledge and technology more than the more isolated parts of the continent, similarly to the rest of the world. However, places like the pre-islamic Sahel and savanna (Ghana Empire, Nok Civilization, Djenne-Djeno), the Gulf of Guinea (Benin, Yoruba states, Igbo states), the Great Lakes regions (Rwanda, Buganda), the Lower Congo (Kongo Kingdom, Kuba Kingdom) and Zimbabwe developed complex organized societies independently from Eurasian contact before 1500.

While the exposed zone was not poor, and benefitted from written languages brought by Muslim slave traders, Hart feels the indigenous peoples still failed to make a single contribution to World civilization.

Bold claims here. Firstly, it is well acknowledged that the University of Timbuktu founded under the rule of the Mali Empire was one of the Islamic world’s main learning centers staffed by local West African scholars with thousands of religion, science, poetry, history and novel manuscripts still remaining to this day. Secondly, “the Muslim slave traders” were not foreigners of North African or Middle Eastern ancestry as Pumpkin Person or Hart seem to imply, these Muslims were Black African Muslims (close to half Sub-Saharans are Muslim) and they were not “slave traders” per se. They indeed traded slaves, along with gold, ivory and gum and other African products.

But it is the vast secluded zone that bears the brunt of Hart’s poison pen.   Described as a primitive and backward region until as recently as the 19th century,  Hart notes that there were:

Interesting, but what is this “secluded zone” that he’s referring to? Can someone name some populations of this “secluded zone”?

-no wheeled vehicles, nor even the potter’s wheel

Which is common to every isolated region with low population density.

– no method of even joining together pieces of wood

It’s extremely hard to understand what he’s referring to. Given that most Africans all over the continent built wooden houses, or assembled different pieces of metal and wood to manufacture tools, weapons or musical instruments, this allegation doesn’t stand the test of reality.

-no beasts of burden or draft animals (though cattle was raised)

These characteristics are far from being exclusive to Africa even if we’re only mentioning the “secluded zone”, these animals were absent in the Americas too. Keeping large animals was made even more difficult in tropical Africa by the presence of tsetse flies killing animals and humans by transmitting African trypanosomiasis also known as sleeping sickness.

-not a single written language in the entire region,  and thus no law codes, no philosophical works,  no literature or even oral epic-poetry

Before expanding on the topic of writing, I must quickly react on this obviously wrong assertion that any place in Africa was devoid of oral literature. Besides the very rich record of such an oral literary tradition, African societies all over the continent are noticed by the existence of a social caste of storytellers best exemplified by the West African griots. As for writing, although it is true that most of Subsaharan Africa remained illiterate until colonization and the literate parts adapted or adopted foreign scripts (writing was only invented in Egypt, Sumer, China and Mesoamerica according to most specialists), evidence, mainly from the Cross River region of current day Nigeria, shows that Africans had developed proto-writing with the Nsibidi system used in courts and were thus only a few centuries away from developing a complete, fluid and ideographic writing system, tonal languages making alphabets hard to use.

-no coins or money

This remark makes no sense since all forms of exchange were barter or a slightly improved form of it before the introduction of real, modern fiat money. Anyway, differently shaped pieces of metal, shells and salt were common means of transaction all over Africa in precolonial times.

– no math beyond simple arithmetic,

Although the absence of written language greatly limits the development of mathematic science, it is obviously wrong to claim that Africans anywhere in the continent were unable of calculation above the level of simple arithmetic. Indeed, as this paper demonstrates in the case of central Africa, various memorization techniques were used to execute complex calculations prior to colonization.

-no cities beyond small towns

Anyone who knows that the difference between a city and a small town or a village is not the intelligence but the number of its inhabitants can only wonder what this is supposed to prove besides the fact that Africa’s population density was and is still very low, which is in line with the leading and unchallenged position among specialists that complex societies are the consequence of population density.

no temples, large monuments nor domes, arches, schools, hospitals, libraries nor paved roads.

Same thing as with cities, monumental architecture was not the product of superior intelligence, instead, it relied on huge pools of laborers to erect such structures whose construction commonly spanned over several decades or centuries.

Hart credits the ruins of Great Zimbabwe as the most notable construction in the secluded zone, but feels it was nothing compared to the Machu Picchu in South America, or Cambodia’s Angkor Wat complex, or Mesoamerica’s large cities and religious buildings.  Hart notes that the giant statues on the tiny isolated Polynesian Easter Island were more impressive than anything found in the entire, secluded zone of black Africa.

This passage contains many inaccuracies. Firstly, Angkor Wat was by no means an isolated place. It was a Hindu, then Buddhist temple, and both religions went to Cambodia from India. As an assemblage of multiple stones to form a fortification system, Great Zimbabwe certainly necessitated more complex skills than carving statues in volcanic monoliths as seen in Easter Island. Machu Picchu, which is not a monument but an abandoned town is actually very similar to Great Zimbabwe, both are settlements built with locally available materials with a relatively simple architecture. Regarding Mesoamerican pyramids, they are absolutely not comparable to either Machu Picchu, Great Zimbabwe or Easter Island monoliths as they were built in a highly populated literate region with advanced mathematics and geometry which greatly facilitate architectural development.

-Almost no maritime skills.  Hart notes the stunning fact that took Indonesians from the other side of the Indian Ocean, coming from 3000 miles away, to inhabit Madagascar in 500 AD, because Africans still had not reached it, even though it was only 250 miles off the East African coast.   Nor did they reach the Cape Verde Islands, just a few hundred miles off the West African coast.

Africans are continental peoples, contrary to Indonesians who had spent millennia on archipelagos where seafaring across calm waters was the only means of communication between tiny islands. The African coast is straight and boarded by tumultuous oceanic waters, without peninsulas nor islands visible from the coast. For the same reason, Europeans never reached Madeira, the Azores or the Americas (apart from the Vikings, reaching Greenland and Newfoundland from Iceland at an unknown period) before the age of discoveries, Native Americans never reached Bermuda or the Galapagos and East Asians didn’t reach the Americas or any island in the Pacific. Continentality does not promote the development of seafaring skills whereas oceanic waters, with no island in sight from the coast give the impression of a boundary of the world. Nevertheless, Bantu peoples reached the Comoros in the sixth century soon after reaching the Eastern coast from their West African homeland, from there, they settled Madagascar at about the same time as Austronesians.

Hart also claims the secluded zone was primitive when it came to political and ethical matters, noting the lack of democracy and civil liberties and the common use of slavery and occasional cannibalism.

I wonder if this part has to be taken seriously. In fact, those things were common features in Africa, in and out of the “secluded” zone. But they were also common all over the world until someone invented and then enforced the idea of human rights. Duh!

Why was the secluded zone of black Africa so far behind virtually everyone else on Earth?  In Guns, Germs and Steel,  Jared Diamond argues that black Africa was simply cut off from the rest of the World, and thus didn’t have access to advances in knowledge, however Hart rejects this explanation because Native Americans were even more geographically isolated than black Africans, yet their societies were so much more advanced.

Wrong, Mesoamerica has impressive pyramids, the Andes have ancient ruined cities but those things definitely aren’t a common sight from Alaska to Patagonia. In fact, the area of the Americas where complex societies never existed is much larger than the whole Subsaharan part of Africa and is also much more “backward” since most populations did not acquire metallurgy and barely practiced agriculture, which makes them paleolithic societies.

Instead Hart favours the cold winters explanation.    Races who left Africa tens of thousands of years ago, and got at least some exposure to the ice age, evolved higher intelligence to survive the cold,  and once the ice age ended, this allowed them to create advanced culture and technologies.

This explanation is not supported by any genetic, archaeological, anthropological evidence. No Wurm-glaciation-related bottleneck has ever been reported by any geneticist, nor did any other related adaption on another trait. The only noticeable anthropometric change that came after the Wurm Glaciation is shrinking brain and body sizes. Also, the cradles of the neolithic revolution (all in low subtropical latitudes) were actually mildly affected by the last glacial maximum whereas such a scenario would have led one to expect agriculture or metallurgy to appear in more northerly regions.

Secondly, there is already a leading theory on the emergence and development of civilization that isn’t challenged and fits observable patterns. This theory does not focus on “qualitative” factors of human populations such as intelligence but simply on quantitative factors such as population density and exposure to long distance trade.

And it is no coincidence that complex societies emerged and developed in environments that were able to sustain high population densities thanks to their climate and vegetation, the quality of their soil, some characteristics of their terrain that prevented population dispersal and facilitated crowding, low disease burden and access to world trade. For these reasons, the different regions of the world experienced different trajectories of social development.

Australia and Oceania

Mostly lying in the tropical zone and greatly isolated from the Eurasian landmass, indigenous Australian and Oceanian societies developed in hostile environments and tiny islands preventing demographic expansion. Whereas Polynesia was settled by Austronesian populations that developed seafaring skills in the Indonesian Archipelago, Australia and Melanesia had no contact with the outer world until European exploration. No agriculture was ever developed in Australia, however Papua New Guinea is one place of independent domestication of crops, which along with continental Asian cultivates spread to Micronesia, Polynesia and Melanesia.

Central And Northern Asia

As a flat, arid and cold continental mass, Central and Northern Asia’s environments do not favor population density and complex social organization. Nomadism was traditionally a prevalent mode of subsistence in the region and and only a few complex permanent settlements emerged along the southern silk roads that were crucial to trans-Eurasian trade. Although the region has virtually no indigenous advancements, the Turkic and Mongolic warlike nomadic tribes have been able to take over the well established empires of Europe, East Asia, India, Persia and the Near-East.

East Asia

Benefiting from some of the most fertile soils of the world, a temperate climate enabling long growing seasons and lowering the prevalence of disease, as well as a terrain made of enclosed plains and valleys in Northern China and narrow peninsulas and islands in Japan and Korea. East Asia’s environment has allowed the development of very complex societies that still boast some of the highest population densities in the world. Expanding southwards to the subtropical area, the Han Chinese found the ideal conditions for year long high yield riziculture allowed by abundant rainfall and fertile soils. East Asia is noticeable within the Eurasian landmass for the indigenous development of its agriculture and writing and its historical resistance to foreign influences, which likely resulted in a delayed social development relative to the potential conferred by its excellent environmental conditions.

Europe

Receiving neolithic technologies from the near east, complex societies first developed in the southern peninsulas of Greece and Italy where the terrain and the Mediterranean climate quickly allowed high population densities. By the end of the first millennium AD, Mediterranean technologies were established in the northern areas and the large scale movement of deforestation cleared vast agricultural areas with fertile soils under an excellent temperate low-disease climate that led to a population boom that quickly allowed Europe to rise to global prominence.

Middle East and North Africa

Often called the cradle of civilization, the Middle East and North Africa reunite the optimal conditions for the emergence of complex societies. A warm, temperate climate with balanced rainfall combined with fertile valleys (Nile and Mesopotamia) allowing year-long irrigation, all enclosed by inhospitable deserts preventing population dispersal. Moreover, the region finds itself at the crossroads of the Old World and has dispersed then received technologies and commodities from neighboring eras.

North America and the Arctic

Similarly to South America and contrary to Subsaharan Africa as depicted by Pumpkin Person and Michael Hart, North America shows a stark contrast between highly developed Mesoamerica and the mostly paleolithic other regions and is a perfect illustration of the fundamental role of population density in the emergence of civilization. Whereas the narrow temperate highlands and warm lowlands of the Mesoamerican isthmus enabled highly productive yearlong agriculture and prevented population dispersal thus leading to very high population density and civilization in isolation from the Old World, the northern areas remained underpopulated due to a vast, flat continental landmass.

Nevertheless, the eastern temperate areas of Canada and the United States, benefiting from a balanced climate and fertile soils sustained some small scale agriculture but it is only after European settlement that these ideal conditions were fully exploited. Another specificity of the Americas compared to the Old World is the absence of disease due to lack of domestication of large animals. Whereas this could have been beneficial for demographic growth in precolumbian times, it proved to be fatal quickly after contact with the old-world as the indigenous populations had evolved no genetic immunity to resist Old World disease or to spread New World disease to the invaders.

South America

Comparably to North America, the development of complex societies is restricted to the very narrow Andine Altiplano, a temperate highland plateau where indigenous populations subsisted on the cultivation of potatoes. A colder climate and a shorter growing season prevented Andine societies to achieve population densities that equaled that of Mesoamerica and for this reason, they couldn’t develop complex technologies to the same level. The rest of the South American landmass has similar environmental characteristics to Subsaharan Africa which is a very warm area of flat arid grasslands and equatorial rainforests. The soils are poor for grain crops and the population densities are accordingly low.

South-East Asia

Entirely lying in the tropical zone, South-East Asia includes the Indochinese peninsula and the Indonesian Archipelago. Whereas some volcanic islands like Java as well as more temperate regions in Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam were able to sustain high population densities, most of the local technology and cultural elements were acquired from the Indian Subcontinent and, to a lesser extant, East Asia. The constellation of islands in Indonesia led to the formation of thalassocracies whose maritime tradition allowed the settlement of Austronesian peoples in remote islands like Hawaii, Madagascar and Easter, but curiously not Australia.

 

Southern Asia

Southern Asia was for a long time the second most advanced region in the world after the Middle East and North Africa and similarly adopted and spread technologies and cultural practices from and to the neighboring regions. Centered around the Indus and the Ganges valleys as well as the Deccan plateau, Southern Asia has fertile soils, warm and moderately humid climates in that alternate with more arid climates where a large variety of crops can be grown all year thanks to powerful rivers that allow irrigation. Seasonal monsoon provide ideal rainfall for rice cultivation. Along with Eastern China, Northern India currently has some of the most densely populated areas of the world.

 

Subsaharan Africa

Subsaharan Africa is a vast, flat landmass under very warm climates which result in environments made of deserts, arid grasslands and equatorial rainforests. Short growing seasons, high disease burden and population dispersal (slave trade included) have made it particularly difficult to achieve sufficient population densities that lead to more complex societies compared to the rest of the world from which the region remained partially isolated. Nevertheless, centralized states were established in the Sahel and the northern Savannas of West Africa, in the Gulf of Guinea, the Lower Congo, the Ethiopian Highlands, the Great Lakes region, the Swahili Coast and Southern Africa. Contrary to the imaginary “secluded zone” theory proposed by Pumpkin Person and Michael Hart, social complexity is in Africa as elsewhere in the world more a function of population density than a function of exposure to “more evolved races”.

 

 

For further information on “secluded zones”, you will enjoy this documentary

Advertisements

110 Comments

  1. Phil78 says:

    Surprised you even bothered, seeing PP has yet to respond to either my or Jm8’s criticisms, but you certainly went the extra mile in actually explaining the differences in development by factors such as landscape and population traits. beyond PP simplistic labels and assumptions.

    Like

    • Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 says:

      but you certainly went the extra mile in actually explaining the differences in development by factors such as landscape and population traits. beyond PP simplistic labels and assumptions.

      That was the actual purpose, I wouldn’t have wasted time on peepee’s retarded stories otherwise. Also, since he’s reporting the narrative of a guy who wrote a book, this posts serves as a refutation of this book at the same time.

      Like

    • szopeno says:

      Thanks a lot for the long post. It fits nicely with theory of “smart fraction” or Karlin’s ideas; however, note that (1) when complex societies arise, then they create different pressures than simple societies (2) Europe had relatively complex buildings built all over the northern Europe (megalithic culture). In case of Poland, we have “Zyndram wzgórze” with stone fortifications 300 years older than Mycenae, and “pyramids” (a name waay overblown, as those are simple primitive stone structures, most likely the graves) between 4000 to 3000 BC (3) The chariot, and wheeled vehicles, horse domestication were most likely developed in the northern Europe (earliest depiction of wheeled vehicles is known from Poland, actually) or pontic steppes, without complex agricultural societies and with low population densities – in X century the population density of Poland was 5/km2 and before that surely it was lower.

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      “PP has yet to respond to either my or Jm8’s criticisms”

      He “incorporated my rebuttal” into his post/entry (by quoting it toward the end), but then responded after (frustratingly) with the quoted section/addition cited below (indicating that he had ignored much of what both you and I had explained under both that blog entry of his and the preceeding one):

      https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/09/24/michael-hart-on-the-history-of-black-africa/

      “Michael Hart would probably dismiss a lot of the achievements Jm8 mentions because they occurred in the exposed zone which was in contact with Caucasoids from the Muslim and European worlds, but Jm8 seems to be implying that even when the achievements occurred in the exposed zone, they either predated the Caucasoid exposure, or were still somehow independent of it.

      But that begs the question, why was the exposed zone of black Africa so much more advanced than the secluded zone, if the exposure to Caucasoid peoples had nothing to do with it?

      As for oral epic poetry not existing in the secluded zone, perhaps this depends on how you define “epic”, as Hart cites the Iliad as an example of epic oral poetry.”

      I responded to the above with several new comments. One of my points—besides that parts of West Africa tended to have better ecological/climatological conditions to support high population densities as well as a few more navigable rivers within the local zone vs the Congo region, generally speaking—was: (also) that, for the most part, the achievements I cited in the places where they occurred, occurred both before any European contact and Islam, and I had pointed this out well before more than once : e.g. the Kingdoms of the Yoruba—like Ijebu, Owu, and Ife as well as Benin, Igbo Ukw etc. (Nok was 1600 bc-200 ad) formed by the early Middle Ages or earlier and flourished mostly before 1500 (the major period/high point for Ife and its art was ca. 1100-1400 ad—though the stone sculpture, esp. the monoliths, likely tends to come more from the earlier period ca 700-1100 ad), with some also continuing after. The Sahelian/savannah cultures I mentioned were pre-Islamic (and some of the advanced cultures I mentioned were actually in Central Africa: Cameroon, Uganda, the Congo region—his supposed “secluded zone”.
      I’m honestly starting to almost feel like the straight-man in a comedy skit, continuing to respond in good faith while being trolled and/or ignored—a role I think I may have fallen into on the internet before, and sadly will likely in the future in more than one place—unless the cause is more bias than trolling, I simply wouldn’t know.

      (I hope this post is not duplicate. I might have sent it twice by mistake, hopefully not)

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      “I responded to the above with several new comments.” (several new ones under the same post by him on Hart and Africa to which I had responded before)

      Like

  2. Drake says:

    Glad to see the “no civilization from Africa because they’re low IQ savage” being debunked.

    Great article.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Jm8 says:

    “especially since West Africans started smelting copper in the Sahel by 2000 BCE,”

    True. There is also evidence of iron metallurgy in S.E Nigeria as early as 1,500-2,000 BC
    http://www.academia.edu/4103707/Iron_and_its_influence_on_the_prehistoric_site_of_Lejja

    (and the ironworking of the Central Nigerian Nok culture likely goes back at least to about 900 BC (from the evidence so found far) and is believed by archaeologists (like Peter Brewing, its excavator) to be from an independent regional tradition.

    “-no cities beyond small towns”

    I must have missed that one. Though I had criticized a similar idea in the comments PP’s preceding blog post (before the Michael Hart one), where I posted many links, often with images. And It is indeed flat out wrong. Of course the cultures you mention (the West African states e.g., Benin, Ashanti, Djenne Jeno, Ife, and the rest etc…..; the Zimbabwe and nearby cultures; and most of the the rest of the places in SS Africa you mention above where states formed, etc) built cities. Those regions of did tended to have relatively high population densities

    The Ashanti built temples and large structures (as did some of the Nigerian states, The Sahelians—and the Cameroonian Bamileke, Bamoum, Bafut, Bandjoun and several other peoples of the region who had and still have a complex and often somewhat ornate and grand (style of) wooden architecture—the Cameroon grasslands is another more densely populated region)—which I linked . The earthworks/earthen fortifications and moats of the Yoruba states at places like Owu and Ijebu where with the “Sungbo’s Eredo” moat is (often carved into the underground bedrock), and by those the Bini around Benin City as well as their Edo speaking relatives the Ishan/Esan a bit to the north of them (the Benin earthworks, were monumental. The Eredo, built in 8,000 AD is roughly the size of Manhattan), and the Benin coast are also extremely extensive (built in stages between the 800s and the 1300s AD and said to have a combined length about equal to the great wall of China.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=eredo&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVk4z3qLrWAhUF04MKHcjMBq4Q_AUICigB&biw=1192&bih=818#imgrc=bz79059cpwCrsM:

    https://csweb.bournemouth.ac.uk/africanlegacy/orile_owu.htm

    Benin earthworks (map of the wall/earthwork complex representing the various walls of the towns and city districts and subsections, at bottom of first link below):
    https://csweb.bournemouth.ac.uk/africanlegacy/benin_Iya_earthworks.htm

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jm8 says:

      Edit:

      “…(like Peter Brewing, its excavator)”

      *His name is actually Peter Breunig.
      (I think the German name “Breunig” might have been auto-corrected to “Brewing”)

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      “…which I linked .”

      That is, I linked them in the comments of that aforementioned preceding post.

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      Correction:

      “the eredo…and the Benin moat…are extremely extensive”

      It’s “the Benin moat”, not “the Benin coast”, might have been auto-correct again possibly.

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      *”The Eredo, built in 8,000 AD is roughly the size of Manhattan)”

      *should be 800 AD

      Like

  4. Jm8 says:

    PP is a good example of the dogmatic “HBDer”, of a pretty common type I’ve been seeing for years online, that nonetheless almost all claim to be driven by an unbiased scholarly interest in the truth (It’s a form of virtue signaling for most. Perhaps that claim is by now starting to be a tiresome cliche, as I can only hope—god knows it has become so for me), and yet display the tendencies of cult followers (complete with an uncompromising all-or-nothing set of beliefs that comes off like the Nicene creed—as well as a seemingly zealous need to proselytize at all costs, which one often sees in youtube comments sections and in the those of certain other sites, including by the use of disingenuity and “pious lies” as some of the early Christians called them).
    When you (RR) in earlier in this blog’s history claimed only an interest in evidence, I admit I strongly doubted it (since everyone says that who speaks on these issues, including the most fanatical and rigid dogmatists), but it seems to have been true (at least in some areas) since you often question some of the major ideas of that (popular racialist) camp and have taken several unconventional (unorthodox as it were) positions (from their point of view) according to what the evidence indicated.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jm8 says:

      Edit:

      “..according to what the evidence indicated (and change positions according to the evidence).”

      Like

    • Paprika says:

      Is (RR) still an hereditarian or did his view changed (or became more nuanced)?

      I’ve read his first articles, from this blog, his position remind me of Ryan Faulk’s position ( The alternative hypothesis is too much into politics though and has an oversized ego).

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      Cont:
      It seems to me that Robert Lindsay (though I may not agree with him all the time) as well as Phil would be in a broadly similar (more/relatively open minded, nuanced and not so dogmatic) category.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Jm8, in regards to your first paragraph, I agree. Most people feign an air of objectivity when all they’re doing is attempting to confirm preconceptions already had, either from personal experience it being emotionally attached to their ideas/what they read since they’ve put a lot of time and energy into it.

      When you (RR) in earlier in this blog’s history claimed only an interest in evidence, I admit I strongly doubted it (since everyone says that who speaks on these issues, including the most fanatical and rigid dogmatists), but it seems to have been true (at least in some areas) since you often question some of the major ideas of that (popular racialist) camp and have taken several unconventional (unorthodox as it were) positions (from their point of view) according to what the evidence indicated.

      I admit I was driven hard by my own biases when I started this blog over two years ago. I’d do anything to confirm my beliefs. As most people who read this blog know, I’ve substantially changed/revised a lot of my views over the past year or so. I’ve done it by reading new material; in constantly reading the other side in regards to this and seeing what makes logical sense in regards to the known data we are have.

      I’m going to chronicle my view changes eventually, I’ve changed/revised a lot of them.

      It seems to me that Robert Lindsay (though I may not agree with him all the time) as well as Phil would be in a broadly similar (more/relatively open minded, nuanced and not so dogmatic) category.

      I agree here somewhat. Lindsay still has some dogmatic views I believe he won’t change. Phil is open to logic and reason and need evidence/arguments. I can’t say that for a lot of people in this sphere, however…

      Anyone who doesn’t consider other ideas while holding rigid and dogmatic views is not an intellectually honest person, and I can say that holds for numerous people in this sphere.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Paprika,

      Is (RR) still an hereditarian or did his view changed (or became more nuanced)?

      I’m hereditarian-questioning (see what I did there?). My views have become more nuanced, I just am open to hearing and reading both sides to form my view (something I didn’t do years ago when I first got into this).

      I’ve read his first articles, from this blog, his position remind me of Ryan Faulk’s position ( The alternative hypothesis is too much into politics though and has an oversized ego).

      Yea I see where you’re coming from there. Faulk has good stuff, his stuff is well cited he’s just outright wrong in some instances (testosterone and race, “carb sensitivity” and race). It’s the same with Tara McCarthy. She’s huge on the race realism dogmatism. She blocked me on Twitter because she kept insisting that even moderate amounts of alcohol is negative, and when i kept citing large meta-analyses to the contrary (stating that moderate alcohol consumption is fine), she got triggered and blocked me.

      Most people who are into this stuff are interested in confirming their own views and biases. That’s not science, and it’s damn sure not a scientific attitude to the questions posed by race realism/HBD.

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      “I can’t say that for a lot of people in this sphere, however…”

      Sadly that seems to be the case.

      Anyone who doesn’t consider other ideas while holding rigid and dogmatic views is not an intellectually honest person, and I can say that holds for numerous people in this sphere.”

      I much agree.

      Like

    • Paprika says:

      I posted a long comment minutes ago but I can’t see the comment anymore which should be visible by me with “comment is awaiting moderation”.

      Was my previous comment put in spam list? Or did it just dissapear thanks to a bug?

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Paprika, try to post it again. If anything, email it to me.

      Like

    • Paprika says:

      I lost the comment I’ve written sadly, I will just rewrite the first part.

      “I’m hereditarian-questioning (see what I did there?). My views have become more nuanced, I just am open to hearing and reading both sides to form my view (something I didn’t do years ago when I first got into this).”

      I understand, at first, I was an 100% environmentalist, then I discovered race realism because of a controversy Ithat I do not remember anymore. I just accepted it without questionning it (yeah, I went from 100% environmentalist to race realist dogmatic, talk about extremes)

      Then after seeing many debated, I decided to look at the counter arguments which do not come from 100% environmentalist. Now I’m skeptic about hereditarians since some of their data can be flawed (lynn’s work).

      My position now is that genes might explain a part of the IQ gap between race (small to low-moderate probably, like 3-6 point of the B-W IQ gap for example) but the majority of the IQ gap between races seems to depend on many other factors hard to control for.

      Is your position something like that too?

      “Yea I see where you’re coming from there. Faulk has good stuff, his stuff is well cited he’s just outright wrong in some instances (testosterone and race, “carb sensitivity” and race). It’s the same with Tara McCarthy. She’s huge on the race realism dogmatism. She blocked me on Twitter because she kept insisting that even moderate amounts of alcohol is negative, and when i kept citing large meta-analyses to the contrary (stating that moderate alcohol consumption is fine), she got triggered and blocked me.”

      (I’ve write a long comment to this part but I will briefly resume it since that i’m too lazy to rewrite it again)

      Yeah, ryan faulk has great articles such as the classification of race, problems with peer reviews too which are great articles but other articles of his are flawed beside testosterones and carb sensitivity.

      http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-iq-and-poverty/

      An article from his buddy Francis but very flawed, he compare GDP of african americans to entire countries to say (see? poor white have higher IQ than blacks), ignoring the fact that cost of living is cheaper in these countries.

      https://imgur.com/a/vz6lM

      He also use Lynn’s flawed data, even if Faulk didn’t write those articles, the fact that he never questionned them and still quote them in some of his arguments against other people (yeah, even the testosterones articles which you debunked) show that he want to hide the truth from his fanbase (fanbase full of jerks screaming niggers toward everyone who slightly oppose them).

      Also this article :http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/the-validity-of-iq/

      He use flawed correlation on IQ “predicting” performance/outcome. He ignored a criticism of his article too just in his comment section, I could add more criticism but I dunno if you agree with him or not so I will not bother you more about it.

      Ryan Faulk want to push the genetic determinism (close to what PP try to do) because if he became an hereditarian questionning, then his white nationalist movement will be less powerful, he literally need race realism dogmatism to exist. Because he think that race realism will help him to divide the USA into multiple coutries based on race (yeah, he literally believe that he can do that without any violence, that people will magically accept to move from their house, he believe that by comparing historical event, as if it can apply in modern context).

      I’m not a leftist, i’m obviously against mass immigration, I just try to be as realist as possible.

      “Most people who are into this stuff are interested in confirming their own views and biases. That’s not science, and it’s damn sure not a scientific attitude to the questions posed by race realism/HBD.”

      Yeah, it’s sad because HBD can be used in good ways, but a lot of people such as Tara and Ryan want to use it in a unethical way.

      That’s why I respect professional such as Charles Murray, his position isn’t close of mine but he listen to opposing views and discuss honestly about it. Richard Haier think the same.

      And I respect more people such as you, and Emil Kirkegaard (he’s an hard herediterian but he’s not ideologically driven and seems to really care about science) because you actually try to reach for the truth.

      You should have more spotlight among HBDer.

      Like

    • Paprika says:

      I think the problem came from the links I’ve posted.

      I will post my comment here: http://notes.io/hjeQ

      This way, not need to bother you with email, just tell me if you’re able to read it on my link.

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      “Lindsay still has some dogmatic views I believe he won’t change…”

      Yeah, perhaps, he’s definitely not perfect, but pretty good (quite a lot better) compared to so many other people in the sphere.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Jm8, a perfect example are his views on testosterone. They’re horribly wrong.

      What’s funny is that when I first got into this stuff I actually argues against the studies I now cite myself showing that there is no difference/a small difference and that even if it were X% higher than whites like Rushton, Lynn et al claim, it still wouldn’t cause higher rates of prostate cancer in blacks nor would it explain the higher black crime rate since testosterone does not cause crime or aggression! I know what these people will say to attempt to save face; it won’t work because I used most of the same args/studies so I know what to say to dogmatists who can’t stomach the belief that Rushton et al were wrong there.

      I’ve heard it all when it comes to hormones/differences in physiology in regards to race. Little do they know, they’re very wrong. No two bodies are the same. Basic anatomy and physiology, something that HBDers need to understand (and I’ll write a piece along those lines that HBDers need to understand basic physiology).

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      “Jm8, a perfect example are his views on testosterone. They’re horribly wrong.”

      I would have to agree (at least regarding it and race, where I agree more with you). I was thinking of that also.

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      Edit:
      “it and race…where I would agree you…”

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      Sorry to keep correcting myself. My language was ambiguous:
      by
      “it and race…where I would agree you…”

      I meant I would agree with you regarding testosterone and race (as per your recent position/posts, which is similar to mine)

      Like

    • Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 says:

      Don’t mind that, typos and ambiguities are normal on the internet. Don’t even correct yourself.

      You write a lot, you know a lot and I suggest that you ask RR for a co-author status or something like that.

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      I meant I would agree with you regarding testosterone and race and the lack of likely significant correlation between them (as per your recent/present position, which is similar to mine).

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Jm8,

      I meant I would agree with you regarding testosterone and race and the lack of likely significant correlation between them (as per your recent/present position, which is similar to mine).

      Agreed. It’s not there. Hereditarians can only cite a few studies, small ns and they’re not replicated. Hereditarians may say something along the lines of “Testosterone is 50 to 65 percent heritable, therefore it’s genetic!” Though people who say that clearly don’t know the extremely strong effect that environment has on physiology as well as testosterone production.

      Never mind that they don’t know how testosterone is produced in the body (indirectly controlled through DNA), while thinking that there are “genes for” testosterone. There aren’t

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Afro,

      I suggest that you ask RR for a co-author status or something like that.

      No problem. Shoot me an email Jm8.

      Like

  5. Paprika says:

    “I’m hereditarian-questioning (see what I did there?). My views have become more nuanced, I just am open to hearing and reading both sides to form my view (something I didn’t do years ago when I first got into this).”

    I understand, I used to be an 100% environmentalist too (when I was young though), then I discovered race realism because of some controversy that I do not remember anymore. Never tried to question it and just accepted it. (Yeah, I actually went from 100% environmentalist to dogmatic race realist, talk about extreme)

    But then I saw people debating about it, after seeing numerous debate, I decided to actually look at counter argument which do not come from 100% environmentalist (for months and months). Now, i’m actually skeptics about herediterian, seeing how flawed some of their data can be (Lynn’s works for example).

    Looking at the evidence, my position seems to be like genes explain with high probability at least between small to low-moderate part of the IQ gap between races (something like 3-5 point of the B-W IQ gap being due to genes for example ) the majority seems to depend on many other factors still hard to control for)

    Is your position something like that too? Is it thanks to Afrosapien that your position became more nuanced? (It was the same for me but with other people)

    “Yea I see where you’re coming from there. Faulk has good stuff, his stuff is well cited he’s just outright wrong in some instances (testosterone and race, “carb sensitivity” and race). It’s the same with Tara McCarthy. She’s huge on the race realism dogmatism. She blocked me on Twitter because she kept insisting that even moderate amounts of alcohol is negative, and when i kept citing large meta-analyses to the contrary (stating that moderate alcohol consumption is fine), she got triggered and blocked me.”

    I agree about his great stuff, his articles about the classification of race, problems with peer review are good to me, well sourced and well interpreted. But I have big problems with his other articles beside testosterones and carb sensitivity.

    In one of his article, he compared the GDP of africans americans to entire countries saying (SEE? POOR WHITE HAVE HIGHER IQ BUT GAIN LESS THAN BLACKS!!!)

    Yeah, easy to compare with countries where cost of living IS LOWER THAN USA!

    https://imgur.com/a/vz6lM (he used Lynn’s biased data by the way, he really do believe that chinese have an IQ of 106, sad). And, isn’t it unfair to compare entire population and a group of a population?

    It wasn’t Ryan Faulk who have write this article, it was a guy named Francis but the fact that Ryan Faulk quote these articles in his arguments (he also quoted testosterones too in his arguments If I remember well and also the fact that he never questionned them) show that he agree with it or do not talk about it for very biased reasons.

    He use flawed correlation too about IQ “predicting” job performance/outcome…etc in the article I will link just below:

    http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/the-validity-of-iq/

    A guy questionned him about it in his comment section but he never replied to the guy, I could add more criticism against this article but I dunno if you agree or disagree with him now about it (I will not bother you too much about my criticism of his articles).

    I could go on and on but I don’t really need to, just wanted to say that it’s sad to see such a complicated topic being handled by ideologically driven people. HBD can be used in a good way but people such as him want to use it in a unethical way (he literally believe that race realism will help USA to be divided into different countries based on race, he literally believe that it can be done without any violence and that people will magically accept to move from their home, he believe that by comparing historical event, as if it can apply in modern context).

    I’m not a leftist, I’m obviously against mass immigration and the way science is badly used in politics (from both main sides) but i’m just trying to be as realist as possible, which the majority of HBDer do not even care about, because if they became an “herediterian-questioning”, then their white nationalism movement will be less credible, they literally need race realism dogmatism to exist.

    That’s why I respect professionals such as Charles Murray, my position isn’t close of his position (maybe thanks to our bias) but he’s willing to see other people’s opinion and discuss it honestly. Richard Haier also think that.

    Respect that I also have (even more) to people such as you and Emil Kirkegaard (Emil seems to be an hard-hereditarian like Ryan Faulk but he’s not really ideologically driven and actually care about science)

    HBDer like you should gain more light, it’s truly unfair.

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      “I’m hereditarian-questioning (see what I did there?). My views have become more nuanced, I just am open to hearing and reading both sides to form my view (something I didn’t do years ago when I first got into this).”

      I understand, at first, I was an 100% environmentalist, then I discovered race realism because of a controversy Ithat I do not remember anymore. I just accepted it without questionning it (yeah, I went from 100% environmentalist to race realist dogmatic, talk about extremes)

      Then after seeing many debated, I decided to look at the counter arguments which do not come from 100% environmentalist. Now I’m skeptic about hereditarians since some of their data can be flawed (lynn’s work).

      I agree here. I would never describe myself being a ‘100% environmentalist’ at any point in my life because I never really cared about anything like this until I found Rushton, Lynn et al. I admit I was more open to their ideas due to my experiences with blacks. But I started this blog due to my new-found interest in science (evolution, psychology, etc) which I do admit was driven by my own personal biases which I have long discarded.

      I recall years back when I first got into this, arguing on different forums about this literally hand-waving anything I didn’t agree with away. I don’t do that anymore; I’ll consider any argument if it’s logical and factual, whether or not it agrees with my views or not. That’s how one grows intellectually: considering ideas that you don’t agree with if they’re logical and factual—regardless of the content of the arguments and if they go against your own personal opinions.

      My position now is that genes might explain a part of the IQ gap between race (small to low-moderate probably, like 3-6 point of the B-W IQ gap for example) but the majority of the IQ gap between races seems to depend on many other factors hard to control for.

      One of my co-bloggers Scott Jameson believes something similar. He thinks genes account for about 12 points with environment accounting for 3 points. Maybe if he see this he can chime in there.

      Is your position something like that too?

      Something like that. Though I’ve become disillusioned recently on IQ tests and what they test. Read this paper by Ken Richardson (2002).

      What IQ tests test—Richardson (2002)

      Yea I see where you’re coming from there. Faulk has good stuff, his stuff is well cited he’s just outright wrong in some instances (testosterone and race, “carb sensitivity” and race). It’s the same with Tara McCarthy. She’s huge on the race realism dogmatism. She blocked me on Twitter because she kept insisting that even moderate amounts of alcohol is negative, and when i kept citing large meta-analyses to the contrary (stating that moderate alcohol consumption is fine), she got triggered and blocked me.

      Yeah, ryan faulk has great articles such as the classification of race, problems with peer reviews too which are great articles but other articles of his are flawed beside testosterones and carb sensitivity.

      http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-iq-and-poverty/

      An article from his buddy Francis but very flawed, he compare GDP of african americans to entire countries to say (see? poor white have higher IQ than blacks), ignoring the fact that cost of living is cheaper in these countries.

      Well said.

      He also use Lynn’s flawed data, even if Faulk didn’t write those articles, the fact that he never questionned them and still quote them in some of his arguments against other people (yeah, even the testosterones articles which you debunked) show that he want to hide the truth from his fanbase (fanbase full of jerks screaming niggers toward everyone who slightly oppose them).

      Yea. They’ll call you a ‘cuck’ or something to that effect for questioning the Holy Grail of IQ testing, etc. Faulk is a good example of biased; especially on testosterone. “Rushton, Lynn et al said it? MUST BE TRUE!”, even though large analyses came out after Rushton and Lynn continuously cited Ross et al (1986) over, and over, and over again. Hereditarians don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to the supposed racial differences in testosterone claim, I’ve blasted it to pieces numerous times.

      Also this article :http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/the-validity-of-iq/

      He use flawed correlation on IQ “predicting” performance/outcome. He ignored a criticism of his article too just in his comment section, I could add more criticism but I dunno if you agree with him or not so I will not bother you more about it.

      Ryan Faulk wrote: “IQ is a better predictor of job performance than lots of things. From Schmidt and Hunter, they looked at the correlation between job performance ratings given by coworkers with various metrics to figure out what best predicts subjectively assessed work performance.

      This is bullshit. Read this paper by Richardson and Norgate (2015):

      Does IQ Really Predict Job Performance?

      I also like how he completely ignores that work-sample tests predicted job performance slightly better than actual IQ!

      Ryan Faulk want to push the genetic determinism (close to what PP try to do) because if he became an hereditarian questionning, then his white nationalist movement will be less powerful, he literally need race realism dogmatism to exist. Because he think that race realism will help him to divide the USA into multiple coutries based on race (yeah, he literally believe that he can do that without any violence, that people will magically accept to move from their house, he believe that by comparing historical event, as if it can apply in modern context).

      People like him have grand delusions when it comes to any so-called ‘Balkanization’ of the US. I agree with you there. It’s extremely unrealistic.

      ‘Genetic determinism’ is retarded.

      Resnick and Vorhaus (2006) distinguished 3 types of ‘genetic determinism’:

      Strong genetic determinism: gene G almost always leads to the development of trait T. (G increases the probability of T and the probability of T, given G, is 95% or greater).

      Moderate genetic determinism: more often than not G leads to the development of T. (G increases the probability of T and the probability of T, given G is greater than 50%).

      Weak genetic determinism: G sometimes leads to the development of T. (G increase the probability of T, but the probability of T is still less than 50%.)

      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]. Second, most traits are epistatic: they are determined not by a single gene but by many different genes. Dozens or even hundreds of genes may play a causal role in the genesis of complex traits such as intelligence, personality, or athletic ability. So, a single gene may only have a small influence on the development of the trait [32]. Third, development (or epigenesis) has a significant impact on gene expression, i.e. how organisms convert genetic information into traits [36].

      Genetic modification and genetic determinism—Resnick and Vorhaus, 2006

      Here is another interesting paper:

      Young Adults’ Belief in Genetic Determinism, and Knowledge and Attitudes towards Modern Genetics and Genomics: The PUGGS Questionnaire—Carver et al, 2017

      Most people who are into this stuff are interested in confirming their own views and biases. That’s not science, and it’s damn sure not a scientific attitude to the questions posed by race realism/HBD.

      Yeah, it’s sad because HBD can be used in good ways, but a lot of people such as Tara and Ryan want to use it in a unethical way.

      Yea and they’ll attempt to hide behind the veneer of ‘Science!’ and ‘objectivity’ to push their biases without even attempting to learn the opposition, hand-waving away anything that contradicts their rigid, hard-line worldview. Tara Mccarthy is clueless; it seems she jumped on the HBD train cuz women+looks=money from beta orbiters.

      That’s why I respect professional such as Charles Murray, his position isn’t close of mine but he listen to opposing views and discuss honestly about it. Richard Haier think the same.

      I love Murray. I don’t agree with everything he says (I don’t agree with everything one person says, that’s stupid), but it pisses me off how he gets heckled for speaking his mind. Hopefully that’ll end in America one day soon.

      And I respect more people such as you, and Emil Kirkegaard (he’s an hard herediterian but he’s not ideologically driven and seems to really care about science) because you actually try to reach for the truth.

      You should have more spotlight among HBDer.

      Thank you for the kind words.

      I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle; ideological biases are abound on both the environmentalist and hereditarian side, so I believe the truth here is close to the middle ground.

      Worth noting that my contrarianism changed some of my views. I’d take the other side, see how hereditarians react and see how the argument plays out. If it worked well, I’ll reconsider my viewpoint on that point.

      Like

    • Paprika says:

      I’m reading your response right now RR, I will reply to you tomorrow after my exam.

      Thanks again for your response!

      Like

    • Paprika says:

      “I recall years back when I first got into this, arguing on different forums about this literally hand-waving anything I didn’t agree with away. I don’t do that anymore; I’ll consider any argument if it’s logical and factual, whether or not it agrees with my views or not. That’s how one grows intellectually: considering ideas that you don’t agree with if they’re logical and factual—regardless of the content of the arguments and if they go against your own personal opinions”

      I agree completely with you.

      “One of my co-bloggers Scott Jameson believes something similar. He thinks genes account for about 12 points with environment accounting for 3 points. Maybe if he see this he can chime in there.”

      12 points? Hmmm, considering Afrosapien’s article on poverty and other recent studies about SES effect on the US, maybe environmental take account of like between 5-9 point from the IQ gap, it’s just an opinion though.

      Now I try to be as skeptic as possible about things without going overboard, for example, I try to check the bias of people, I’m not saying that their opinions are disproved but we should not follow them blindly. That’s why I consider your opinion a lot, because you’re able to put your bias aside. I’m trying to do the same but maybe i’m not hard enough on myself.

      Talking about genes, I checked David Piffer’s twitter and he seems incredibly biased, ideologically driven, he often retweets things related to muslims, africans., and he’s the guy who found some SNP and compared them to different countries. I’m not dismissing his work at all, because he proved the existence of these SNP but we should be careful with things such as sample size..etc, I will say the same thing about works from ideologically driven leftist. But even with piffer’s work, it doesn’t mean that the IQ Gap is mainly due to genes but you know what I mean.

      “Something like that. Though I’ve become disillusioned recently on IQ tests and what they test. Read this paper by Ken Richardson (2002).”

      Oh! A 32 pages study about IQ? It seems really interesting, I will read it later though, I’m quite busy with exams sadly. Is it that great of a paper?

      “Yea. They’ll call you a ‘cuck’ or something to that effect for questioning the Holy Grail of IQ testing, etc. Faulk is a good example of biased; especially on testosterone. “Rushton, Lynn et al said it? MUST BE TRUE!”, even though large analyses came out after Rushton and Lynn continuously cited Ross et al (1986) over, and over, and over again. Hereditarians don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to the supposed racial differences in testosterone claim, I’ve blasted it to pieces numerous times”

      I never considered the testosterone=violence in my case, I mean, it’s supposed to be a positive hormone, not something making you violent. “Cuck” is just a buzzword now, I don’t even care anymore about being called like that.

      “This is bullshit. Read this paper by Richardson and Norgate (2015):

      Does IQ Really Predict Job Performance?

      I also like how he completely ignores that work-sample tests predicted job performance slightly better than actual IQ!”

      Thanks for the paper! It confirm my criticism of his article!

      “People like him have grand delusions when it comes to any so-called ‘Balkanization’ of the US. I agree with you there. It’s extremely unrealistic.

      ‘Genetic determinism’ is retarded.”

      Yeah I agree, I’m sure that you can find low IQ people who’re honest and hard worker as you can find High IQ dishonest people (Bush, 120 IQ). Thanks for the papers though!

      “Yea and they’ll attempt to hide behind the veneer of ‘Science!’ and ‘objectivity’ to push their biases without even attempting to learn the opposition, hand-waving away anything that contradicts their rigid, hard-line worldview. Tara Mccarthy is clueless; it seems she jumped on the HBD train cuz women+looks=money from beta orbiters.”

      Tara has nothing for herself beside her look.

      “I love Murray. I don’t agree with everything he says (I don’t agree with everything one person says, that’s stupid), but it pisses me off how he gets heckled for speaking his mind. Hopefully that’ll end in America one day soon.”

      Agree.

      “Thank you for the kind words.

      I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle; ideological biases are abound on both the environmentalist and hereditarian side, so I believe the truth here is close to the middle ground.

      Worth noting that my contrarianism changed some of my views. I’d take the other side, see how hereditarians react and see how the argument plays out. If it worked well, I’ll reconsider my viewpoint on that point.”

      I think the same thing, I still believe that groups are not truly equal in term of intelligence, but the hereditarians (Such as Ryan and Emil) seems to underestimate the effect of the environment.

      Beside, we still have yet to discover things about brains, multiple intelligence…etc

      Sorry for replying so late, I’ve been more busy than expected.

      Like

    • Paprika says:

      RR, can you post again the link about “what does IQ test test?”? I didn’t save it sadly.

      It doesn’t work when I click on it now, weird.

      Also, did you see my comment above? I’m afraid that wordpress suffer from bugs again, my comment sometimes dissapears then come back in wordpress blogs for no reason.

      Like

  6. ron burgundy says:

    afro the little french girl is still deleting my comments.

    i’d be interested in RR’s sources regarding how adiposity is accompanied by an increase in lean body mass.

    i have read that this accompaniment becomes necessary after a while and this explains why superheavyweight weightlifters are fat. they have to be. there’s no way to get that strong without also being fat.

    i would guess that sumo and offensive lineman (an american football position for a non-american audience) must have the same traits, but while offensive line is still 50% by white, white sumos suck. sumo is dominated by mongolians.

    here are the 2008 %s supposedly.
    tight end and offensive line are the whitest after qb.
    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-most-of-the-players-on-the-New-England-Patriots-offensive-and-offensive-lines-white

    Like

  7. Drake says:

    When will you write your next article Afrosapiens? Just curious

    Like

  8. meLo says:

    Have you heard of Russ Afro?

    Some real Italian gangsta shit right here bud

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Brian says:

    So, my long response to RaceRealist that I posted a minute ago do not appear, it seems that i have been blocked here.

    I expected something like that, can’t argue against evidence I guess.

    Like

    • Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 says:

      I don’t think you’ve been blocked

      Like

    • Brian says:

      So why my comment do not appear?

      Maybe not literally blocked but my response to RaceRealist didn’t appear. When I try to repost it, it say “this comment is a duplicate…etc”.

      So you or him saw my response but it didn’t appear.

      Like

    • Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 says:

      Nah it’s a wordpress bug. Make sure you copy your comment end then paste it later on in case wordpress fails to save it.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      I will copy paste my comment in a site for note, then link it to him directly, like that, no bug at all.

      I will consider that your statement is true.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      I can argue against anything. I’ll reply this afternoon. Question, is one of the studies in that link from Woodley (2014)?

      Like

    • Brian says:

      This link:

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614000312

      Yeah, not just this one though;

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4376118/

      Anyway, here’s my entire previous comment that I can’t post here apparently:

      http://notes.io/hvMi

      Good luck if you ever try to respond to it, you will need it.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Here is Peter Frost on that paper:

      I have mixed feelings about this study. Looking at the world distribution of this allele (see above map), I can see right away a much higher prevalence in Eurasia and the Americas than in sub-Saharan Africa. That kind of geographic distribution would inevitably correlate with IQ. And it would also correlate with the prevalence of infectious diseases.

      Unfortunately, such correlations can be spurious. There are all kinds of differences between sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of the world. One could show, for instance, that per capita consumption of yams correlates inversely with IQ. But yams don’t make you stupid.

      More seriously, one could attribute the geographic range of this allele to a founder effect that occurred when modern humans began to spread out of Africa to other continents. In that case, it could be junk DNA with no adaptive value at all. There is of course a bit of a margin between its estimated time of origin (circa 37,000 BP) and the Out of Africa event (circa 50,000 BP), but that difference could be put down to errors in estimating either date.

      The riddle of Microcephalin

      This is the perfect example of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.

      Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is a Latin phrase for “after this, therefore, because of this.” The term refers to a logical fallacy that because two events occurred in succession, the former event caused the latter event.[1][2]

      Here is the argument form:

      P1: X happened before Y.
      P2: (unstated) Y was caused by something (that happened before Y).
      C1: Therefore, X caused Y.

      Arguments that use this type of logic are fallacious. Sure it’s a fancy way of saying that correlation does not equal causation but that doesn’t change the fallacious logic. (Also read my response to James Thompson’s criticism of the fallacy.)

      Any idea if Africans—both in America and Africa—have higher rates of microcephaly? I’m hesitant to accept that Woodley et al 2014 study, it’s just a correlation, and it’s fallacious. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

      Good luck if you ever try to respond to it, you will need it.

      Luck is for losers.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Brian says:

      Pretty weird correlation don’t you think?

      It’s as if it explain Africa’s state perfectly.

      Also, it’s not just 2014 study, also this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4376118/

      But, you seems to ignore my previous comment which I posted here:

      http://notes.io/hvMi (since your blog block it for some “reason”)

      Because the other evidence seems to approve the MCPH1.

      My blocked comment show the main elements proving the inf…. I mean the lack of intelligence from africans.

      If you can’t argue against it, then just take the redpill.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      It’s just a correlation, it doesn’t “prove” that those genes are “for” X.

      In regards to Pulvers et al (2015), I don’t deny the alleles’ ’cause’ for brain size growth over evolutionary history, I question whether or not this is causative.

      Im not ignoring you. I’m on my phone and don’t like typing long replies with sources while on mobile. I’ll respond tonight. I don’t even disagree with a lot of what you cited and quoted.

      I have taken the ‘red pill’.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      I don’t believe you, you seems to hide yourself from the truth. If anything, you still suffer from the blue pill.

      Because the fact that you question it show wrong you’re.

      inb4 you say something about my blocked comment like “yeah, I agree with heredity/adoption studies/IQ test/anything…etc anything which prove you right but it doesn’t prove you right because I say so”.

      Because if you agree that their lack of intelligence cause their own poverty not us, that their genes pretty much decided that they can’t behave in our western world, why arguing against me?

      You should argue against the blue pilled “Afrosapien” who seems to think that genes do not matter.

      I will wait for your response but you seems weird to me.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      And I still hope for response of you Afrosapien for monday. I’m not forcing you at all, it’s just that RaceRealist apparently agree with me but will probably use mental gymnastic to disagree with me so I hope for you that you mean it when you claimed that you will debunk me monday.

      I’m not really afraid, i’m just curious about how a man who apparently love science and logic will argue against someone like me who write very long comment with actual science and logic.

      Like

    • Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 says:

      Lol! Man you’re a joke.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Oh, so you didn’t ignore me after all. I will apologize for assuming that.

      I will wait for your response monday, those who argue against me should be in their best possible shape.

      Like

    • Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 says:

      Lmao! I have other things to do, son.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      “Can you stick around till Monday and get a more detailed response with the links and stuff?”

      “But since you bothered writing a long piece (and writing looks kinda painful to you) I’ll address your points by mere politeness.”

      You said that though.

      Do you lie now?

      As you can see, I responded to RaceRealist when he responded to me, I never ignore responses. If they’re constructive, I will respond to them in the same way.

      He said about brain size that correlation isn’t causation. It’s not a bad argument but I responded to him by saying that I have a lot of reasons (my studies/claims from my deleted comment) to think here that correlation is causation.

      Then he claim that he agree with a lot of stuff I posted in it. It seems incoherent to me.

      Maybe you will enlight me why later.

      Like

    • Drake says:

      “sigh”

      Brian, believe me, that confidence you’ve will shatter monday. It’s dangerous.

      Afrosapien isn’t a race denier, he’s a HBDer who truly work with science/logic/facts.

      Afrosapien already debunked your claims. If he want, he can just quote you his articles or comments which already debunk you but he probably want to post a rebuttal in a frontal way, this way, you will not avoid it.

      I feel bad with what will come to you monday.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Kid, I think that you misunderstand me.

      I’ve done research on it since almost 2 years, it’s not something that I decided to believe with few things.

      If he can counter me, then I will admit my mistakes. Because if he has “good evidence” for his claims, then my rebuttal to it will be meaningless because the other will see that i’m like an idiot denying facts.

      Problem is that this scenario is very very highly unlikely because it seems impossible to me to argue against my claims and studies.

      And care to link the article/comments which apparently debunk me?

      You claims that there is rebuttal but I see none kid.

      Like

    • Drake says:

      Calling me kid isn’t an argument.

      Look, according to your comment, you believe that Lynn’s numbers are accurate.

      See this article: https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/09/05/worldwide-iq-estimates-based-on-education-data/

      Lynn’s data is biased and unprofessional.

      Try more.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Oh, finally link, so let’s see…

      There is good rebuttal from someone called “melo” in this article:

      https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/09/05/worldwide-iq-estimates-based-on-education-data/#comment-4424

      I agree with the first part of it that lynn’s work isn’t disproved but I disagree with the last part saying that IQ should be higher for africans.

      Because it’s not just Lynn who mesured their low IQ.

      Wicherts, who criticized Lynn, gave us an IQ average of 80 for africans, but he did that by ignoring Sudan, which is retarded because it’s black as fuck.

      Wicherts-Lynn Exchange:

      http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/wicherts2010.pdf

      http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/lynn2010.pdf

      Also Rindermann gave us an IQ average of 75.

      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257045611_African_cognitive_ability_Research_results_divergences_and_recommendations

      International test score show an average of 74, which is pretty representative:

      TIMSS 1995:

      http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000014.pdf

      TIMSS 1999:

      https://nces.ed.gov/timss/results99_1.asp

      TIMSS 2003:

      https://nces.ed.gov/timss/TIMSS03Tables.asp?Quest=3&Figure=5

      https://nces.ed.gov/timss/TIMSS03Tables.asp?Quest=3&Figure=6

      PIRLS 2006:

      http://timss.bc.edu/PDF/p06_international_report.pdf

      IEA 1992 Reading assessment:

      http://files.eric.ed.gov.sci-hub.io/fulltext/ED360613.pdf

      Second International Science Study 1983:

      http://ips.gu.se/english/research/research_databases/compeat/Before_1995/SISS

      So the problem is that it’s not just Lynn.

      But I will admit that his number on other countries might be innacurate, but I’m defending the low IQ of blacks here, i’m not an absolutionist so it doesn’t disprove me.

      IQ is a very good predictor of a lot of things when it’s accurate (SES/jobs/education…etc)

      So, now how will you deny the predictive power of IQ (also the numbers for africans)?

      Also, IGBO is a smart group of black (probably the only smart persons among blacks, looking for smart blacks is like looking for a needle in a hay stack), even poor IGBOS score better than your average black.

      How can you explain that?

      Like

    • Drake says:

      You didn’t get the link at all.

      The main point of this article is to show that education as a proxy is a better predictor than Lynn’s IQ test or other IQ test.

      The validity of IQ test is less credible if education data is a better predictor than IQ itself.

      It show that IQ tell you less about genes than you think.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      And as I said, it doesn’t disprove Lynn’s data. Look at the rebuttal from the guy named Melo.

      Also, like it was unironically said before, correlation isn’t causation. It doesn’t mean that education cause these “IQ”. So here, it barely predict anything.

      And please, you shouldn’t make bogus skepticism about the most replicated finding in psychology, which uses the most reliable (test-retest), valid (predictions), and the most long-lasting psychometric in human history – IQ.

      And it’s not just “a correlation” a correlation in my case, it’s systematic equality when IQ is the same between the races. A group of 10,000 white people with an IQ of 90 get the same income, rated job performance, military unit ratings, high school grades and college grades as a group of 10,000 black people with an IQ of 90.

      The correlation between IQ and these things could be 0.1. The size of correlation is not the point, it’s the systematic racial equality across all these things when IQ is the same.

      So not, you didn’t disprove IQ at all.

      SES have been controlled many times, the IQ gap still remain, I posted links about twins studies, adoptions studies, heredity in my deleted and blocked comment.

      And you didn’t respond to my claim about IGBOS.

      Like

    • Drake says:

      Look, there is a guy that I want to debate with now so I will respond to you later.

      Maybe the other will respond to you before me and surely better than me, just wait.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Fine, I’ll wait. What about linking me to that debate? Does it has something to do with IQ and race?

      Do what you want, at least you tried to respond to me, poor argument but you tried.

      As you can see, I never ignore responses to me.

      This blog is weird though. You guys always say (I will respond to you later) when you can just respond later.

      Some of you get triggered by racial slur, even though we’re on the internet where racial slur is everywhere.

      One of you agree with me but disagree with me actually…etc

      Anyway, I will wait.

      Like

    • Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 says:

      LMAO! Indeed, you’re very dumb. The two years you spent selecting studies that support your position would have been better spent learning basic logic, French and English. And then you would have been able to have robust arguments instead of the comical show that you’re performing here.

      Like

    • Michel Dupont says:

      You’re really dumb Brian. If you take more of a look at the blog, articles and comments, you will already see rebuttal of your position.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Dear Michel, if I actually look at the top of the page, I can see articles proving my point actually.

      https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/03/06/non-western-people-are-abnormal-to-our-societies/

      “The same can be said for Negros in America as well. They are deviant, dysfunctional, they cause distress in our country and finally, they pose a danger to us, our families and societies as a whole. Just like those immigrants we have come into our countries who cannot assimilate because it’s not in their biology.”

      https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/10/22/rip-rushton-and-jensen/

      “Rushton and Jensen will be fully vindicated one day. It’s only a matter of time. David Piffer showed that IQ alleles differ in frequency between races, meaning that a FULL vindication of Rushton, Jensen, Gottfredson, Murray, Herrnstein, Lynn, Kanazawa et al are going to come soon.”

      Yeah Michel, it’s only a matter of time. So asking me to search for more information from this blog DO NOT HELP YOU AT ALL.

      Dear AfroSapien, care to explain to me why am I putting a comical show?

      Like

  10. Brian says:

    I want to write to you a long rebuttal to your article but even if I can understand english, i’m not really used to use it myself.

    You’re french apparently Afrosapien, can I write my criticism in French?

    Like

    • Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 says:

      Yes, I’m French so I will understand. My reply will be in English though

      Like

    • Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 says:

      Honestly, I you were able to write this short comment fluently, I think you’re able to write it in English. Use simple grammar, and add a French translation when you think you did not translate your French thoughts accurately.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      I use google translate + reverso, believe me, my level english isn’t that good. My next comment will be in french.

      Feel free to respond in english.

      Like

    • Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 says:

      Your French is worse than your English. I won’t have the time to reply to your comment below, it’s way too long, all your claims have been debunked many times by many people. You’re just regurgitating Pioneer Fund garbage and you’re not even doing it right. Plus your tone is very inappropriate.

      Moreover, you’re not even mentioning anything that is on this article.

      So, your comment is going to the trash. This is an English language blog and your post definitely isn’t worth a translation. Sorry.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Care to gave link of comments/articles to the debunked claims?

      I will respond to each of them, just link them. (I will do my best in english)

      Sorry for my tone, didn’t think that it hurt. No insult next time from me i promise.

      Like

    • Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 says:

      I’ll be back to you later on. No time this weekend but I’d appreciate that you address this post instead of parroting long debunked fallacious arguments from Lynn & cie.

      PS: If you don’t want to hurt, the best thing to do is not to use slurs and gratuitous attacks. Then maybe you’ll be entitled to talking about intelligence.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      I’m used to kind of language in the internet, how many time i’ve been called “babtou” by non white but i’m still here.

      Anyway, if you links me articles/comments which debunk me, I will respond to where they came from (if you have a comment going against MCPH1, I will respond it directly, not here, highly doubt that you have something but you can try)

      Like

    • Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 says:

      Babtou is a sweet word, It’s like nigga for whites, you can’t take offense.

      Haha, don’t talk like you know me. I can already debunk things that you haven’t yet said. HBD is so predictable.

      Now tell me, what’s up with your French? Why are your grammar and orthography so rusty? It’s quite ironical for someone who judges other’s intelligence.

      Anyway, before we go further, address this article above.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Believe me, babtou isn’t used in a nice way against me, but i’m used to it though. Racial slurs is everywhere on the internet (youtube comments, forum, boards….etc). But I will hold myself from using it here now.

      Also, I respond to your article, it was there:

      “Alors oui il y a le désert du Sahara mais le désert du Sahara personne n’y vit, la densité de population y est quasiment nulle, ce n’est pas dans le Sahara que vivent les africains, ils vivent plutôt dans les régions équatoriale humides. Des régions chaudes, humides parfaitement propice a une agriculture intensive, après défrichage. Le climat africain donne une productivité agricole beaucoup plus importante que l’Europe avec ces hivers froids et faiblement ensoleillés, il y a des hivers tellement froids que le bétail meurt parfois, des étés secs par moment, des conditions pas faciles. L’Afrique équatoriale c’est une température annuelle de 25 degrés, une humidité importante toute l’année, des pluies régulières, des conditions parfaites sous réserves de savoir organiser une société rationnelle. De plus l’Afrique possède énormément de ressources naturelles précieuses, de ressources énergétiques importantes, des conditions parfaites pour l’enrichissement des nations.”

      And i’m interested by the comments/articles which apparently “debunk me on the other parts”, feel free to links them sooner or later, I will respond to the sources directly, not here, this way, no HS.

      Like

    • Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 says:

      Lol! And this part made me cringe, it’s all wrong.

      Like

    • Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 says:

      And use slurs elsewhere on the internet, people on this blog respect each other.

      Now, for your own good, avoid such language. Your arguments are already poor, so talking like an angry racist removes what little credibility they have. Talk to me here like you would talk to me on the street. I’m that tall big black guy who keeps your inner redneck in check.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      How is wrong?

      It also correlate with brain size…etc

      Too much correlation don’t you think?

      (Hope to see links of comment/articles which “debunk me”)

      Like

    • Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 says:

      Too little, Can you stick around till Monday and get a more detailed response with the links and stuff?

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Fine by me. I can wait for monday as long as I get a response which respond to all my claims. I’m pretty confident about my position so no problem.

      Like

    • Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 says:

      Hahaha, yeah, the confidence of a hard believer. My refutation will fly over your head because you’re not guided by logic and science. I’ve been through your type of person many times. But since you bothered writing a long piece (and writing looks kinda painful to you) I’ll address your points by mere politeness.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      I never saw a great opposition to my claims to be honest.

      If you think that your response will fly over my head then you’re wrong.

      Because I will respond to you no matter what, I showed you my best arguments about why my position can be considered as a fact.

      I didn’t write this long piece just to ignore your response, so no I will not ignore it.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Brian,

      if you have a comment going against MCPH1

      This is from Rushton:

      No evidence that polymorphisms of brain regulator genes Microcephalin and ASPM are associated with general mental ability, head circumference or altruism.

      Although all measures were construct valid and the allele frequencies showed expected population differences, no relationship was found between the genes and any of the criteria.

      It also correlate with brain size…etc

      Taking the high end of the correlation (.5), that would only explain 25 percent of the variance in intelligence between individuals. Meaning that 75 percent still needs to be explained which leaves ton of room for other different variables. People with brains in the range of erectus can have IQs in the normal/above average range. If people can have IQ scores above average with smaller brains, then this implies that some erectus could have had an IQ similar to modern day humans. (The true brain size/IQ correlation is .4, explaining 16 percent of the variance.)

      If the above argument is true (and it is), then brain size must have increased for another reason which is not intelligence but something that intelligence tests don’t test: expertise. A good proxy to use is tool-making/use. That’s a great proxy for expertise. People in northern climates make more tools so, in effect, would need more expertise to make said tools (along with the climate effecting brain size and physiology), while people in tropical climates need fewer tools and therefore less expertise in tool-making than people northerly people.

      Brains are metabolically expensive, and having wider hips impedes bipedalism and running. So the trade off to birth bigger-brained babies must be important in our evolutionary history. Think to when brain size began increasing and thing of how life would have been then and how people would have survived. That tells you something.

      Brain Size Increased for Expertise Capacity, not IQ

      HUMAN EVOLUTION EXPANDED BRAINS TO INCREASE EXPERTISE CAPACITY, NOT IQ.—Neuroscientist/philosopher John Skoyles

      Brain size doesn’t really tell anything about IQ. Brain size increases go a point with IQ, where the size of the brain begins to drop dramatically after that number.

      I’ll run your comment through a translator later and respond to it.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      I will try to post my comment again.

      RaceRealist, did you ignore these links?:

      https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey_Anderson/publication/7611129_Microcephalin_a_Gene_Regulating_Brain_Size_Continues_to_Evolve_Adaptively_in_Humans/links/0fcfd5094074eef6a6000000.pdf

      https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Woodley_Of_Menie/publication/261185242_The_relationship_between_Microcephalin_ASPM_and_intelligence_A_reconsideration/links/0a85e53add7cae6154000000.pdf

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.h.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4376118/

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614000312

      “At the population-level IQ and Microcephalin correlate significantly (.790 and .847)
      Microcephalin significantly predicts population differences in IQ”

      http://www.pnas.org/content/103/48/18178.full

      http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/neandertal_dna/introgression_faq_2006.html

      “At the center of the debate on the emergence of modern humans and their spread throughout the globe is the question of whether archaic Homo lineages contributed to the modern human gene pool, and more importantly, whether such contributions impacted the evolutionary adaptation of our species. A major obstacle to answering this question is that low levels of admixture with archaic lineages are not expected to leave extensive traces in the modern human gene pool because of genetic drift. Loci that have undergone strong positive selection, however, offer a unique opportunity to identify low-level admixture with archaic lineages, provided that the introgressed archaic allele has risen to high frequency under positive selection. The gene microcephalin (MCPH1) regulates brain size during development and has experienced positive selection in the lineage leading to Homo sapiens. Within modern humans, a group of closely related haplotypes at this locus, known as haplogroup D, rose from a single copy ≈37,000 years ago and swept to exceptionally high frequency (≈70% worldwide today) because of positive selection. Here, we examine the origin of haplogroup D. By using the interhaplogroup divergence test, we show that haplogroup D likely originated from a lineage separated from modern humans ≈1.1 million years ago and introgressed into humans by ≈37,000 years ago. This finding supports the possibility of admixture between modern humans and archaic Homo populations (Neanderthals being one possibility). Furthermore, it buttresses the important notion that, through such adminture, our species has benefited evolutionarily by gaining new advantageous alleles. The interhaplogroup divergence test developed here may be broadly applicable to the detection of introgression at other loci in the human genome or in genomes of other ”

      82.9% for chinese,
      78.6% for french,
      63.8% for arabs,
      12, 25% for kenyan
      3.3%, for congo.

      Big correlation with IQ.

      DNA show clear difference on brain between races, how can you deny that?

      Also, no need for translation, I will post the links directly:

      http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2017/39/3/1506465020-1420624598755.png

      Is this fake too? Koreans are always at the top on adoption studies.

      Since the beginning of IQ test, blacks were always at the lowest part.

      Intelligence is Highly Heritable and Polygenic

      http://www.noelshack.com/2017-39-4-1506632853-iq-related-genes-by-race.png

      Africans clearly lack of intelligence genetically.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4804158/

      Consensus is with me.

      Honestly, you can’t argue against that, I just don’t see how.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      RaceRealist, since your blog suffer from “a bug” apparently, I will post the comment that I can’t post here in this site:

      http://notes.io/hvMi

      I hope that you will not avoid it, even if I really don’t see how you can respond to something that was scientifically proved.

      Like

  11. Drake says:

    Guys, according to the comment section of your articles, some people do hate your guts for no reason.

    I mean why are they this arrogant? What does it bring to them?

    Ron something remind me of the guy that seek for rebuttal from you, so after proving him wrong, he will hate you for that so he will bother you forever.

    Pumpkinsperson remind me of the guy who see his position as a fact, so he will always find something to prove himself right and ignore your arguments at the end (I checked your debate with him in his blog guys).

    Obssesed Brian is like a combination of both, seek for rebuttal because he think that no one can argue against him but he already bother you.

    Are you used to this? I don’t think that I can be used to that kind of thing in my case.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Kevin Kevin says:

    A friend advised me to read your articles Afrosapiens, they’re great. The hereditarian hypothesis is depressing, there is obssesed guys in a french forum that love to spread that theory with topics to young people (Look at these monkeys/low IQ/ne****).

    The guy probably do it to spread unfair hate on innocent non white like me and my family, politics is really sickening. In my case, I don’t really care about politics, I just want to live my life with my family with respect to the country where I was born and raised.

    My little brother browse on the same forum too, I’m sure that he has saw these kind of topics but I do not have enough knowledge to counter it (and not brave enough to talk about it with him for now)

    I know that telling you this shouldn’t matter, this blog shouldn’t be about life of random dudes but I just wanted to express my determination to read literature against it.
    What should I read/see to stop buying on this theory? I dunno if we can disprove it completely but, anything at least.

    I wish to be able to debate against those who spread this theory!

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 says:

    Hi everybody, thank you for your replies to my articles and sorry for my absence, I’m unavailable this weekend. I’m back to you guys tomorrow.

    Like

    • Kevin Kevin says:

      Hi Afrosapiens, did you see my comment above?

      Like

    • Kevin Kevin says:

      Oh, you did see my comment since you liked it.

      You can just tell me what I should read to be able to argue against people who spread this theory on a French forum where my little brother browse (do you want to know what French forum am I talking about?)

      Sorry if I ask too much.

      Like

    • Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 says:

      Yes I saw your comment 🙂 . I guess the French forum you’re referring to is either jeuxvideos.com or fdesouche.com. I’ll tell you some good reads when I’m done with Brian, Also scientific search engines like Google scholar and sci-hub are the best way to find studies.

      Like

    • Kevin Kevin says:

      .Thanks a lot man! I’m so glad to have found your articles. Respond to me when you want, I’m determinate to read a lot of literature to argue against hereditarians.

      And yes you’re right, it’s jeuxvideo.com (my brother would never browse on fdesouche), specifically 18-25, my brother browse on it, it wasn’t a forum that politicized before but now…

      Like

    • Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 says:

      Haha, this forum is utter trash, I doubt anyone can reason the guys on there.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      I enjoy arguing against hereditarians. Post some of their arguments here.

      Like

    • Kevin Kevin says:

      Thanks guys. I dunno where to begins. Those who actually use “science” are more rare than those who use simple arguments.

      I’ll try to find the arguments which they back up with studies but they mostly use simple arguments such as:

      “Quote me one sucessful black country/state? Oh wait, there is none”

      “Countries with the highest crime rate are always nig****”

      “Did you ever see europeans eating humans alive? No, but africans can eat them as some tribes eat their own people”

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Oh so they’re not serious at all. Good to know. Just ignore shit like that and only respond to arguments with substance (those aren’t even arguments though).

      By the way there is a history of cannabalism in Europe.

      Like

    • Kevin Kevin says:

      Thanks “RaceRealist” for your response”

      To Afrosapiens.

      Yeah, this forum is now utter trash but it wasn’t like that before. People in this forum just loved memes and things like that before.

      But now, it shifted to just being a place for politics of any kind (the shitposting kind), I blame the board /pol/ from 4chan for that, lot of their “memes” are now well present in this forum (such as “blacked”) who shared their propaganda on it.

      The mods do not even care anymore, they just said “deal with it”.

      Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Please keep comments on topic.

Jean Baptiste Lamarck

Eva Jablonka

Charles Murray

Arthur Jensen

Blog Stats

  • 268,757 hits
Follow NotPoliticallyCorrect on WordPress.com

suggestions, praises, criticisms

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