Video: English dialect

The arr-s are from the Cornish and their trade routes (including piracy), I believe.

Rural sounds were extinguished by state schools in the 1950s-60s. When I speak like certain relatives, apparently I sound like a pirate to Yanks. There is such a thing as posh rural too. Not just the Okay-yah lot. A softer level. But the Gap Yah lot do show the arr sound is classless English with a slight throat noise to seem almost like an Ah!

Really, it’s Arh!

Old English also sounded closer to Cornish/rural than modern TV “English” -RP.

I read in it once for a teacher, on an Old English text and my own friends had to look around because they didn’t know who was speaking. It sounds coarser but richer and more lyrical, the likes of Chaucer sound better.

Never try to read Old English in RP, it sounds horrendous. Tis a crime against ears.

Plenty of jokes also don’t work.

re RP: Why is it called Received?

Received upon sodomy at a boarding school. We jape.

Americans sound like they’re slurring because modern ones speak a lot slower (I can ‘get’ what they say at double speed, easily) and the vowels drag e.g.

Heeeeeey youuuuuu

English person would say:

Hay Yu

Blunter, Celtic sound. Sounds clipped and mean, but isn’t.

With affection:

H-ay Yew

Subtle but we like making people uncertain as to whether we love or loathe them.

We also have the BBC guide to defamation:

But tongue posture varies by language (or race)

Given the lookism data and non-harmful, non-genetic nature of this, it seems fine.

However, it may only be possible to enhance certain races e.g. NW Europeans and native, dominant speakers of certain languages e.g. English, Old English.

I’m not messing with you. This once.

I haz receipts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronunciation_of_English_/r/
Peter Ladefoged wrote: “Many BBC English speakers have the tip of the tongue raised towards the roof of the mouth in the general location of the alveolar ridge, but many American English speakers simply bunch the body of the tongue up so that it is hard to say where the articulation is”.[6]

AHA.

The ‘orthotropic’ principle!

The extension to the IPA recommends the use of the IPA diacritics for “apical” and “centralized”, as in ⟨ɹ̺, ɹ̈⟩, to distinguish apical and domal articulations in transcription. However, this distinction has little or no perceptual consequence, and may vary idiosyncratically between individuals.[7]

Culturally, actually. Close.

How many of these guys with facial issues speak American, not proper English?

Not judging, per se, just ….noticing.

Why are the Brits considered generally better looking than comparable American men?

Could it be that, to us, they sound stupid because, among other things, they sound drunk? They literally sound like they’re slurring.

Again English English is the only real English, tongue posture is immensely important. It would be like using a hammer wrong and wondering why it hurts, this is important. Common Core is opposed to elocution lessons, wonder why.
And reminder, language is genetic in origin.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3355373/

“Mutation rates are required only for adding a time scale to both trees. Based on the topologies of trees generated from both the genetic and linguistic data, the inference of the parallel evolution of genes and languages in Caucasus is supported, despite controversies about the mutation rates.”

Parallel evolution, you can’t just take another race’s language and expect fluency on par with a genetic native. This might contribute to, say, Africans’ lower tests score, at least a little.

If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree etc.

The blogs full of historical handsome men leads me to believe Victorian English was particularly good for male facial structure (on women you don’t notice so much)


e.g. the difference to now in

“Flapped” or “Tapped” R: alveolar flap [ɾ] (About this soundlisten) (occurs in Scouse, most Scottish English, some South African, Welsh, conservative Irish and Northern England English, and early twentieth-century Received Pronunciation; not to be confused with flapping of /t/ and /d/)

A lot of Welsh models, almost untouched pristine language rearing, just saying. If a beautiful Welshman moves to America and adopts the accent, over time his facial beauty weakens.

18th and 19th century Americans (listen on youtube) sounded British. Rural British.

This faded out mid-20th century, with the rise of TV monoculture, when the American man’s face seemed to weirdly cave in like a child’s.

Gay men with excellent facial beauty (women admire) also have precise language, old-fashioned dialect. They know, they’re shallow.

How many Hollywood actors are posh?

Schools used to teach elocution. Why no longer? It’s part of speaking a language.

I’ve actually had to tell men that texting over talking will weaken their jaw.

They didn’t know. It’s a MUSCLE.

The digital native Millennials have overall worse jawlines than Gen X. Coincidence?

When old people age, they have fewer people to talk to, speeding up atrophy.

I have met researchers on these disparate topics so can bring you these threads, albeit short of resolution. Research needed, obviously. It is just really interesting. Like, even eating with cutlery made white people have more civilized jaws.

But forcing the proven brain delay of bilinguilism is bad for them, not to mention could be impossible due to differences.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2016/06/13/success-in-second-language-learning-linked-to-genetic-and-brain-measures/

Genetic variations of the COMT gene and a measure of the strength of the brain’s communications network — known as “white matter”— jointly accounted for 46 percent of the reason for why some students performed better than others in the language class.

So girls are better at it.

A waste of a class, must never be compulsory.

But being well-spoken literally makes men hotter to women. We can see it in how their face moves.

How many rappers look like mouth-breathers? [Whites invented rap, called flyting].

Flyting is a ritual, poetic exchange of insults practised mainly between the 5th and 16th centuries. The root is the Old English word flītan meaning quarrel. Examples of flyting are found throughout Norse, Celtic, Anglo-Saxon and Medieval literature involving both historical and mythological figures.

Crushes on matinee idols are not a coincidence. Speech, song, poetry. All of it helps.

Etiquette had benefits. I very much want to benefit from telling men this.

Bilinguals NOT smarter, data twisted

http://scienceline.org/2014/07/are-bilinguals-really-smarter/

Don’t believe me, here’s a quote from the researcher herself.

This idea that bilinguals are smarter is relatively new. Up until the 1970s, most educators believed that learning two languages at once would confuse children and slow their cognitive growth.

and the honest research backs this up, many times over
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/04/27/dont-believe-bilingual-propaganda/

But science disagreed with these convictions, says Ellen Bialystok, a professor of psychology at York University in Toronto, Canada. The advent of neuroimaging technology (specifically the CAT scan) in the 1970s granted scientists a new way to investigate how different brains process language. But the emerging evidence wasn’t the only reason bilinguals seemed smarter; Americans’ changing attitudes played a big part, Bialystok says. As the cultural xenophobia of the 1950s subsided, society as a whole began to accept the shift towards multiculturalism.

Scientific.

Bialystok has been researching the bilingual brain for decades, and she is adamant: Bilinguals aren’t smarter than their single-language counterparts. “I think it’s a real problem that [my work] may be interpreted that way,” she says.

Again, for the liars:

Bilinguals aren’t smarter than monolinguals.

Bilingual brains differ in their use of executive function — a system that helps the brain access particular regions or memories when prompted, like a neurological Dewey Decimal System. A person needs executive function to switch between tasks or look for a friend in a crowded restaurant. When less developed, executive function also makes adolescents more reckless.

Contrary to media reports, executive function is not the same as intelligence, Bialystok reiterates.

Conflation, false equivalence, media lies.

They are distinct, discrete, different entities. It’s as stupid as someone claiming that obesity is the same as calories or suicide is the same thing as rope. You can tell the journalists are largely bilingual to make these common comprehension errors in semantic fluency.

But I can’t find a modern, genuine IQ study of many participants that honestly compares monolingual to bilingual. How odd. You’d think they’d want to settle the debate. Unless they’re dishonest?

But pinning down the concept of intelligence itself is not an easy task. Dictionaries define intelligence as the ability for a person to absorb and apply information — and that’s part of what executive function does, too. But this abstract definition of intelligence doesn’t mean much to science,

translation – It isn’t science. It’s propaganda.

We already have IQ, which they refuse to compare honestly because it’s real (Binet) and precise so you can’t really lie.

Bialystok says, and “that’s one of the reasons you can’t say that bilingualism (or increased executive function) gives you more of it.” Intelligence and executive function have a murky relationship and, because of this obscurity, Bialystok may be right to doubt their synonymy.

May be?

Scientist wants to deter liars, she may be right!

Why did I look this all up?

https://frankreport.com/2017/08/23/rainbow-cultural-garden-is-geared-to-the-wealthy-at-125000-per-child-per-year/

His concept is based on his theory that teaching children from earliest infancy in multilingualism develops greater brain development.

Totally not political. Totally not a failed attempt at eugenics.

Mr. Raniere does not speak any foreign languages. He can speak only English.

Mr. Raniere’s program provides each child in the Rainbow Cultural Garden seven different foreign babysitters. Each babysitter speaks in their native language to the child.

Totally not a pedo ring.

The brain actually prunes sounds with age, you’re slowing that process down. It’s bad for them.

1st article

But the surprising part is that the parts of your brain where the lexicon is stored don’t just turn on and off when you need them; they’re engaged all the time.

Linguistic ADHD, yay!

Changing neural pathways to meet new needs is a concept called neuroplasticity, and these constant tiny decisions reinforce the brain’s new configuration to make them more efficiently.

Nope!

This reminds me of the multi-tasking studies where people thought they were better but were actually worse. It’s literally the same brain problem. You have limited capacity.

They have a delayed reaction time, the exact opposite.

He determined that bilinguals had more activity in both hemispheres of the pre-frontal cortex, which controls executive function.

No, not really. Actually, not at all. It does a lot of things, including language processing. That’s way too broad.

e.g.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381199990441X

Functional Specialization for Semantic and Phonological Processing in the Left Inferior Prefrontal Cortex”

You can’t just claim executive function without fucking testing it (and discounting other processing in the same regions). A picture doesn’t tell you that.

The increased activity, he hypothesized,

guessed

stems from the need to repress one language in order to answer correctly in the other.

slowing
objective retarded reaction

Other researchers, including Bialystok and Costa, have conducted similar experiments over the past ten years, all with comparable results.

What you claim is not what you found.

You have a picture. You use it for studies, it isn’t really a study by itself.

False results can be duplicated with effort. Especially when it involves merely labeling a picture wrong.

Prefrontal cortex is a language centre, for it not to fire up, they’d need to be dead.

Don’t believe me, here’s a nature article, bitches.

Prefrontal cortex doesn’t not equal = smarts. It = listening, consciousness.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nn1299_1131

“Dual streams of auditory afferents target multiple domains in the primate prefrontal cortex”

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ana.410280502

“Large‐scale neurocognitive networks and distributed processing for attention, language, and memory”

“This approach provides a blueprint for reexploring the neurological foundations of attention, language, memory, and frontal lobe function.”

I can find this, why can’t you?

1st

Even if the relationship between bilingualism and actual intelligence is unclear

one IQ study, that’s all I ask for

 executive function can help people do a lot of things that may make them seem smarter, such as doing more things at once and cancelling out distractions.

see?

This is like the useless person who pretends to multi-task.

 But, Costa says, “Everything else equal, bilinguals may have a reduced vocabulary in each language.” Bilinguals certainly know more words overall, he notes, but in each individual language, their vocabulary may suffer.

in practical reality

“Everyday practice with the second language makes you control the language; you need to focus on the new language while you [ignore] the other one. This is what seems to help the development of executive function.”

aka school lessons are useless

The long-term cognitive benefits, Costa says, really outweigh the minimal short-term detriments.

No, no proof!

If you mean dementia risk, debunked that in the last post. Considering the brain of bilinguals is permanently changed and slowed on many tasks, there are multiple, permanent deficits.

You could say, a functional disability.

Don’t believe bilingual propaganda

They don’t control for class, marital status of parents and education level, let alone IQ.

The more languages a person speaks in practice, the more scattered their communication, as you’d expect.

https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/bilingual-advantage-aging-brain

 a phenomenon that researchers call the bilingual advantage

not biased at all

For the first half of the twentieth century, researchers actually thought that bilingualism put a child at a  disadvantage, something that hurt her I.Q. and verbal development.

When you account for IQ yes.

But, in recent years, the notion of a bilingual advantage has emerged from research to the contrary, research that has seemed both far-reaching and compelling, much of it coming from the careful work of the psychologist Ellen Bialystok.

No, one person’s opinion doesn’t steamroll decades of IQ data.

For many tasks, including ones that involve working memory, bilingual speakers seem to have an edge.

Do they control for race? If they mostly or only study Ashkenazi Jews, it doesn’t even apply to all Jews.

And when it comes to qualities like sustained attention and switching between tasks effectively, bilinguals often come out ahead. It seems fairly evident then that, given a choice, you should raise your child to speak more than one language. Indeed, papers touting “Creativity and Bilingualism,” “Cognitive Advantages of Bilingual Five-Year-Olds,” “A Bilingual Advantage in Task-Switching,” “Bilingualism Reduces Native-Language Interference During Novel-Word Learning,” and “Good Language-Switchers Are Good Task-Switchers”—and the resulting books with provocative titles such as “The Bilingual Edge” and “Bilingual Is Better”—suggest that raising a bilingual child is, in large part, a recipe for raising a successful child.

What propaganda? Science is always so overwhelmingly one-sided?

From the age of eleven, Angela de Bruin spoke two languages. Born in the nineteen-eighties in Nijmegen, a small town in the Netherlands, de Bruin spoke Dutch at home, and, in school, immersed herself in English. She became fascinated by bilinguals, and read avidly about the cognitive advantages that being fluent in more than one language was supposed to provide.

confirmation bias

In college, she took up linguistics and neuroscience. And, in 2012, de Bruin enrolled in the psychology graduate program at the University of Edinburgh to further pursue the link between bilingualism and cognition.

No motive there.

This reminds me of left hand studies that say they’re smarter.

Being left handed doesn’t make you smarter. They’re different variables.

This is doing the exact same shit. Publication bias.

They won’t publish studies that show no link or an inverse connection to a positive variable. Egocentric scientism. Tut tut.

She came to the program fully expecting to study the extent to which her bilingual brain was adapted to succeed. “I had the impression that there’s a really strong effect of bilingualism on executive function,” de Bruin told me recently.

Experimenter  prejudice.

Normally, to test for an edge in executive function,

actual science yes

you give a version of a task where people have to ignore certain stimuli while selectively focussing on others. …..

When de Bruin looked at the data, though, in three of the four tasks testing inhibitory control, including the Simon task, the advantage wasn’t there. 

Scatter brains, duh. These people fumble for a single word like a child when “fluent”.

Let me guess, she rigged a new test to get the result she wanted?
Why oh why is there a Reproduction Crisis with these tossers walking about?

Monolinguals and bilinguals had performed identically. “We thought, Maybe the existing literature is not a full, reliable picture of this field,”

fuck. you.
The field is The field. Your single subjective opinion is not eminent, fucking narcissist.

she said. So, she decided to test it further.

Of course she fucking did.

Because science means flipping the coin again and again and again until you get the result you want.

Wait – that’s scientism. Allowing your personal faith to render the results null and void.

Systematically, de Bruin combed through conference abstracts from a hundred and sixty-nine conferences, between 1999 and 2012, that had to do with bilingualism and executive control. The rationale was straightforward: conferences are places where people present in-progress research. They report on studies that they are running, initial results, initial thoughts. If there were a systematic bias in the field against reporting negative results—that is, results that show no effects of bilingualism—then there should be many more findings of that sort presented at conferences than actually become published.

Ok. This is interesting.

That’s precisely what de Bruin found.

Not the reverse, poor performance? Did she look? Or just not mention it because she is personally affected?
Multi-linguals shouldn’t be conducting multi-lingual efficacy studies.

For the same reason ice cream companies shouldn’t be studying whether ice cream is healthy.

At conferences, about half the presented results provided either complete or partial support for the bilingual advantage on certain tasks,

keyword OR

and on CERTAIN tasks (which might be neutralized by others)

while half provided partial or complete refutation. 

The null hypotheses have it.

 But the advantage is neither global nor pervasive, as oftenreported.

Almost like you need other factors.

 They had each group take part in four tasks—the Simon task, a task of everyday attention (you hear different tones and must count the number of low ones while filtering out the high ones), the Tower of London (you solve a problem by moving discs around on a series of sticks to match a picture of what the final tower looks like), and a simple task-switching paradigm (you see circles and squares that are either red or blue, and must pay attention to either one color or one shape, depending on the part of the trial).

all of those connect with IQ

In the first three tasks, they found no difference between the groups.

control for class

On the last, they thought they’d finally detected an advantage: on the switch trials—the trials immediately after a change from shape to color or color to shape—the bilinguals, both active and passive, seemed to be quicker. But when the researchers dug deeper, they found that it wasn’t so much a case of switching faster as it was being slower at the non-switch trials, where shape followed shape and color followed color.

Does she perceive this finding accurately? I doubt it. Motivated with self-interest…

So does that mean that there’s no such thing as a bilingual advantage? No. It’s just one study.

You’ve done how many?

Pored over how many? Thousands?

Tried to rig how many?

And your best one still fails?

The null hypothesis must be accepted, bitch.

At BEST, there is no improvement. Science isn’t optimistic. You is slow.

As proven by this interview, QED.

The true edge, de Bruin believes, may come far later,

rich parents

and isn’t science all about one bitch’s beliefs?

and in a form that has little to do with task-switching and executive control; it may, she says, be the result of simple learning.

Private tutors.

Adults who speak multiple languages seem to resist the effects of dementia far better than monolinguals do.

They said that about brain training, control for diet.

Bilingualism, in other words, seems to have a protective effect on cognitive decline.

Not what the word means. Protective effect means they don’t get the disease.
Tired of lies.

That would be consistent with a story

of learning: we know that keeping cognitively nimble into old age is one of the best ways to protect yourself against dementia.

Then how can bilinguals forget an entire language in a short period of time?

If learning a language has the same effect as Sudoku, I know which is more time-efficient.

When the brain keeps learning, as it seems to do for people who retain more than one language, it has more capacity to keep functioning at a higher level.

No it has less. That’s how capacity works. It literally has less.
If certain brain cells are taken up with a task and that task is doubled, tripled or more (2, 3+ languages) then you can have less storage space for new things, including short-term memory (think like RAM).

Here’s a wikipedia tier argument of why you’re wrong.

https://lca-psychology.weebly.com/displacement-theory-of-forgetting.html

And why bilinguals are slow IRL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgetting#Interference_theories

That, in and of itself, is reason enough to learn a second, third, fourth, or fifth language—

I see no effect, let alone a compounding effect. How is 5 better than 2?
Journalists are dumb.

and to keep learning them as long as you’re able. The bilingual advantage may not appear in the exact guise researchers think of it today. But, on a fundamental level, bilingualism’s real benefits could be far more important.

Do Sudoku, read books, chug olive oil like a Hollywood actress drinks semen.
Don’t fall for bilingual propaganda.

http://theconversation.com/there-are-also-drawbacks-to-being-bilingual-56726

Let’s check with people who know their shit.

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/opinion-there-are-also-drawbacks-to-being-bilingual

Cambridge University: 

There are also drawbacks to being bilingual

The article didn’t mention drawbacks, did they?

I guess, after poring over thousands of studies, she must’ve magically missed ALL. OF. THEM.

But the scientific community recently has become increasingly sceptical of the bilingual advantage hypothesis. One of the main points of criticism is that differences between monolinguals and bilinguals when it comes to executive function are not always apparent.

Memo: If it’s a brain thing, it always shows.

This has generated a heated debate, especially in the Bilingualism Forum of the scientific journal Cortex, about whether bilingualism is associated with cognitive advantages or not.

Like the left handed thing. Other factors were responsible.
Lefties aren’t the master race of handedness, calm the fuck down.

Without IQ to signal over, people choose the most ridiculous bullshit. What’s next, mercury retrograde?

This is very simple. Find the high IQ and only the high IQ (1SD+). Check whether the monolingual ones are better at processing incoming verbal information (since that is what a language is).

If yes, monolingualism is better for the brain.

They’re tip-toeing around, someone will have to do it eventually!

This ability is called metacognition and is associated with, but separate from,

aka a good test

other areas where bilinguals have been shown to have an advantage. Surprisingly, however, we found that bilinguals had less insight into their performance than their monolingual peers.

Yet the Government insists kids study a second language.

https://www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/compulsory-languages-primary-schools-does-it-work

TLDR: No but they lie.

“A quiet revolution happened in English primary schools last September, representing a historic curriculum change: language-learning was made compulsory for all children between seven and 11.”

“is involved in an international science project with funding from the European programme ‘Erasmus Plus'”

And there it is, anti-national sentiment.

Get ’em young if you can’t brainwash them into it at Uni.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/11412441/Dramatic-decline-in-number-of-university-students-taking-modern-foreign-languages.html

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jan/31/drop-in-university-language-applications

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/oct/08/modern-foreign-language-degrees-axed

At last, we are seeing a new language become a normal part of children’s learning from the beginning of their primary education – while they are confident and curious – rather than a challenging new subject associated with the pressures of starting secondary school.”

How long until compulsory Arabic, set your timers.

Actually, you need to start in the womb, when they can hear language.
Three at the latest, so this will actually accomplish no boost in fluency.
Give me the boy UNTIL he is seven, and I shall show you the man.
Not AT seven, idiots.

Why? Why force this on kids?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/01/17/making-languages-non-compulsory-gcse-step-backwards/

“Unfortunately, studies have showed that businesses often prefer multi-lingual applicants with English as their second language over monolingual

cucking for corporations, anti-white corporations

This is all about companies extracting as much lifeblood from you as possible.

Back to the thing bilinguals are shit at in the study, Cambridge writes:

This ability is a crucial function of everyday life, when we have to make decisions where the outcomes are not immediate. For example, when an entrepreneur reviews their company’s performance, they need to take into account a variety of factors – including, for example, revenues and expenses – in order to evaluate whether the company is doing well.

Notice how most successful companies are run by school drop-outs? Maybe monolinguals have an advantage that explains this?

We only evolved to speak one language each. From an evolutionary perspective and given how language is genetic in basis, forcing children to learn more is disabling healthy brain expression. It might be permanent if deployed during early development (primary school) due to neural pruning.

Confidence in their ideas and performance can be the determining factor in whether they decide to keep investing time in their company or give up and apply for another job (the so-called “exploitation exploration trade-off”).

or cost benefit to normal monolingual people who can do it

So you’re telling me bilinguals are delusional? Less realistic? About themselves? And their abilities? Yes, let them study their supposed magical advantage, I’m sure they’ll try to find some way to conjure up something.
And by forcing it on small children, there won’t be a control group of monolinguals to study, how convenient.

State force is inhumane.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/second-language-thinking-hinders-imagination-study-spanish-mandarin-english-a8206341.html

There’s a confound with expecting Mandarin speakers to be creative if you look at their baseline but okay.

So we’re depriving small children of a potent imagination.

But TV is the problem?

Creative kids question authority, you see.

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/do-we-need-modern-language-graduates-in-globalised-world

But we should be concerned about a purely instrumental view of modern languages that plays up advanced skills training at the expense of supporting a research-led discipline where literature, culture and history are investigated through the relevant languages.

Companies don’t even need them.

Why hire someone who speaks Spanish when all the Spanish people will flee to you because their economy is in the shitter? With mass immigration, languages are dead.

Cambridge study:

 However, monolinguals were better able than bilinguals to discriminate between when they were right and when they were wrong. In other words, bilinguals had less insight into their performance than monolinguals. This went against our initial predictions, as we expected to find a bilingual advantage in metacognitive processing. These results indicate that bilingualism may be associated with cognitive disadvantages as well as benefits.

Don’t allow kids to self-correct and they can’t self-teach.
No wonder teachers are pushing it.

Consider this quote from the British Council article about compulsory bilingualism.

“It is an ethos that firmly promotes bilingualism as an asset: as one pupil put it, ‘the more languages you know, the brainier you are’.”

Lies.

It’s a way to make dumb kids look smart on a transcript.

Cambridge again:

However, monolinguals were better able than bilinguals to discriminate between when they were right and when they were wrong.

These results indicate that bilingualism may be associated with cognitive disadvantages.

British Council:

“Language awareness permeates the school: in addition to the one hour per week in which all children learn French, every opportunity is taken to introduce children to other languages, including Latin and the languages spoken by teachers and pupils.

Code for Arabic.

Cambridge:

The Multilanguage & Cognition lab (MULTAC) at Anglia Ruskin University is currently undertaking a three-year project funded by the Leverhulme Trust to enhance our understanding of the bilingual mind.

no bias there

The lab has already published evidence of cognitive advantages

quelle surprise

associated with bilingualism

but not caused by
which is what the control freaks claim

more lies

I smell a rat

Leverhulme? Where do I know that name?

https://www.leverhulme.ac.uk/funding/grant-schemes/international-networks
“Following a review by the Leverhulme Trust Board, this scheme has been discontinued with immediate effect. It is therefore now closed to new applicants.”

Hmm.

https://www.leverhulme.ac.uk/useful-links/europe

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/developing-minds/201404/when-does-bilingualism-help-or-hurt

While many of us share the intuition that learning two languages is better, or believe we’ve been told that from the media or scientific studies, the actual evidence is mixed.

like the participants

ba dum dum tssh

Dr. Ellen Bialystok(link is external), a professor of psychology at York University, has been studying the pros and cons of bilingualism for almost 40 years. She and her team have found evidence on both sides of the bilingualism argument. They find that children who regularly speak more than one language (bilinguals), on average, have slight linguistic disadvantages but also cognitive advantages(link is external) as compared to children who speak only one language (monolinguals).

This woman hasn’t been mentioned.

Curious.

Only positive in biased articles, no mention of people like this.

Those linguistic disadvantages must be studied and ideally, controlled by race, class and education.

Again, a genius study would resolve this debate.

“One of the findings from these studies was that bilinguals have minor disadvantages relative to monolinguals with regard to vocabulary. While the size of an individual’s vocabulary or lexicon varied widely, on average monolinguals had more vocabulary in their one language than bilinguals had in either of their languages alone. Also, the time (in milliseconds) it took to retrieve words when thinking was slightly longer for bilinguals.”

literally slower

 In particular, bilinguals are especially good at tasks that involve monitoring conflict, a skill one practices a lot if trying to use words from one lexicon while avoiding those from another.

that’s called cognitive dissonance
not a good thing

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002209651200166X

Poor design, the monolinguals and bilinguals hadn’t practiced.
This is like comparing athletes and normal people on cardiac health. One group has an unfair advantage so the test isn’t finding what you claim it does (poor internal validity). You can’t say it’s a fair test.

PT also nabs this: “As bilingual children learn and use multiple languages (appropriately monitoring and using words from the right language at the right time) they are exercising and strengthening their executive function via neuroplasticity.”

Cheating, in study terms.

“So while bilingual children may have a slightly smaller vocabulary for each language as compared to their peers who speak only one language, they gain a cognitive advantage by having strengthened executive function. ”

No, they tested one aspect of one memory function with a minor effect. They haven’t tested executive function and the ultimate, IQ.

Vocab deficiency and Reaction time (which is correlated highly to IQ FYI):

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887617707000224

However, the bilingual group performed significantly lower in semantic fluency.

I know, I’ve met enough. It’s frustrating to stand there, putting up with their shit articulation for the thousandth time this month.

This pattern of performance in verbal fluency is consistent with that found in previous studies.”

Link from top is

http://www.yumingschool.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Bilingualism.-The-good-the-bad-and-the-indifferent.pdf%20

The effect on linguistic performance is generally seen as a deficit

Generally. A disability.

Memory tasks based primarily on verbal recall are performed more poorly by bilinguals but memory tasks based primarily on executive control are performed better by bilinguals.

primarily? are they or not? poor design there

memo: short-term memory is vital to IQ

so you can maybe possibly find one exception to disabled recall but generally, they aren’t as good as remembering things, as you’d expect since more language capacity is taken up

Speculations regarding the mechanism responsible for these effects are described.

Language proficiency and verbal fluency: The bad

wow, science

It is now well documented that bilinguals generally control a smaller vocabulary in each language thanmonolinguals

Yet The New Yorker missed this. All of it.

This finding is especially important for descriptions of children’s development because vocabulary size is a central measure of children’s progress in both the oral and literate forms of language development. In some sense, vocabulary size serves as a proxy for the representational base of language that the child is constructing, with a richer and more diverse vocabulary reflecting a more elaborate understanding of language. However, developmental research has consistently shown that bilingual children control a smaller vocabulary in each language than their monolingual peers.

Aka they’re thick. They may technically know two but they don’t fully understand two.

To confirm this reported finding, we combined the standardized Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test scores of 971 children between the ages of 5 and 9 years,

primary age

about half of whom were bilingual, who had participated in a variety of studies in our lab over several years. The overall analysis showed that the monolinguals had a mean standard score of 105 and the bilinguals had a score of 95, a difference that was highly significant (Bialystok and Feng, in press).

Over 10%.

Holy shit.

The difference was found for children in each age group, and there was no interaction of age and language group, indicating that the vocabulary gap was constant throughout this sample.

Primary school compulsory language classes are bad for the brain.

The older children were in third and fourth grades at school and were following a curriculum that was heavily dependent on English language and literacy. Nonetheless, the average vocabulary size of the bilingual children was smaller than their monolingual classmates

It will make them dumber. If you care about the kids, stop.

The same pattern emerges for adults, although the measure in this case is not usually vocabulary size but rather access to vocabulary, or lexical retrieval

If I had a pound for every time I heard “er, I don’t know the English”.
So they don’t actually know the language in practice, either!

Using a variety of tasks, bilinguals have been shown to be slower in picture naming (Roberts, Garcia, Desrochers,Hernandez, 2002; Gollan, Montoya, Fennema-Notestine and Morris, 2005; Kaushanskaya and Marian, 2007), obtain lower scores on verbal fluency tasks (Rosselli et al., 2000; Gollan, Montoya and Werner, 2002; Portocarrero et al., 2007), encounter more tip of the tongue experiences (Gollan and Acenas, 2004), demonstrate poorer word identification through noise (Rogers et al., 2006), and experience more interference in lexical decision (Ransdell and Fischler, 1987). In all these studies, there is evidence that at least part of the problem is the interference that must be resolved from the other language. Manipulating the relation between the words in the two languages, for example, by controlling the cognate value or adjusting word frequency, systematically changes bilingual performance (Costa, 2005), suggesting that there is a central role for the relation between the words in these effects.

Angela de Bruin somehow forgot to mention any of those long references.

In her long research of the entire field.

One minor point that’s positive and they claim it’s Settled Science TM

totally ignoring all the neutral and negative findings, like that

or these

The bilingual deficits in lexical access and retrieval persist with aging (Gollan, Fennema-Notestine, Montoya and Jernigan, 2007), although a study by Gollan, Montoya, Cera, and Sandoval (2008) showed that the effects of aging interacted with word frequency in that older bilinguals demonstrated a smaller deficit for low-frequency words. In a study of younger and older monolinguals and bilinguals, we administered three tasks to assess verbal knowledge and retrieval: an English vocabulary test (PPVT-III), a version of the Boston Naming Test, and two tests of verbal fluency (Bialystok, Craik and Luk, 2008). The PPVT-III is a standardized test of receptive vocabulary in which the participant is shown four pictures and must indicate which of the four corresponds to a name spoken by the experimenter. In the Boston Naming Test (Kaplan, Goodglass and Weintraub, 1983) participants are asked to name a series of line drawings of objects. In our version we substituted verbal definitions for half of the drawings on the speculative assumption that accessing words would be more difficult from abstract definitions than from relatively concrete drawings because of the contextual support provided by the latter (Craik, 1983).

bias in favour of the bilinguals

Finally, in the fluency tests, participants had to say as many words as possible within one minute starting with a given letter or conforming to a given category. Following standard procedure the letters were F, A, and S and the category criterion was animals. In all these tasks, the bilinguals at both ages obtained lower scores than their monolingual counterparts.

The reason that bilinguals experience deficits in lexical access is not clear.

Seems pretty clear to me. Overload.

On one view, the explanation is attributed to the fact that bilinguals use each of their languages less often than monolinguals, creating “weaker links” among the relevant connections required for rapid
and fluent speech production (Michael and Gollan, 2005). This explanation follows from connectionist models in which the pathways that underlie the associative networks between words and concepts are distributed across two languages, making those associations with each language less practiced and therefore less fluid.

Imagine cutting your language centres in half.

This view is based on bilingual speech production modeling in which these retrieval effects are simulated in a connectionist network (Dijkstra, 2005). Alternatively, Hernandez and Li (2007) propose a sensorimotor account that involves the age of acquisition of the vocabulary in each language,
with different outcomes depending on the age of L2 acquisition. Other views attribute the reduction in lexical access to the conflict that is created by the competition from the corresponding item in the non-target language (Green, 1998). This competition requires a mechanism for controlling attention to the target language, possibly by inhibiting the interfering option. Generally, such conflict is resolved by the executive processes for control, attention, and switching. If these processes are involved in ordinary language production for bilinguals, then it is possible that their constant use in an ordinary and frequent context will have the consequence of transforming those processes through practice, making them more efficient and more available for a variety of applications.

The hype for additional languages is not justified, there are far more deficits (at least 7 or 8 types, likely more) than merits (1 of a tiny 1 test of a speculated 1 skill).

The pro-bilingual studies have to use pathological groups e.g. the deaf. You can’t generalize that.

e.g.

As usual, the bilinguals were faster than the monolinguals on both the congruent and incongruent
trials, but the speech–sign bilinguals performed exactly the same as the monolinguals on both trial types.

So it ISN’T about dual language use. That result should be impossible.

This pattern supports the interpretation that the conflict for selection

overcoming a forced disability on the brain

between two active languages is central to the enhancement of executive control found in bilinguals.

Athletes can easier run up a flight of stairs than people who didn’t train, what a shocker, they must be superior human beings.

Following the idea that cognitive reserve builds up from extended experience with stimulating activities

training

and that this cognitive reserve protects against the onset of dementia….

aka it isn’t the actual language, it’s the studying!

Let’s check.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2911991/

Engaging in hobbies for one or more hours every day might be protective against dementia in late life.

Ding ding ding! Teach them something useful! (Read: Anything else).

Previous paper concludes:

The overall conclusion from these various studies is that bilingualism is one of the experiences capable of influencing cognitive function and, to some extent, cognitive structure.

Brain damage. More distraction, just what kids need.

The effects, however, are not simple; the language deficit and the control advantage interact to create a complex picture of cognition that is different for bilinguals and monolinguals, but not in a way that can be simply defined as better, worse, or indifferent.

Translation: it isn’t better, you jerks.

PT:

“So while there are a host of advantages to the ‘bilingual brain’—executive control and memory benefits”

lie

as you can see, they use one minor memory test of many to claim EF
that is one (1) finding

and only a few minor disadvantages

No, read the paper you linked. MANY. Major issues.

They are literally slower.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retard_(pejorative)#Etymology

“The word retard dates as far back as 1426. It stems from the Latin verb retardare, meaning to hinder or make slow. The English adopted the word and used it as similar meaning, slow and delayed.”

Thus, parents might consider not only the cognitive benefits but the social and experiential ones as well when deciding whether the immersion school or enrichment program makes sense for their children.

It isn’t about the child, it’s about the politics of being enriched.

It’s about parental virtue signalling.

Eventually, they’ll move the native tongue to second-class status, as it stands in many schools, before banning it. You aren’t allowed to speak your own language in your homeland, don’t you feel free and liberated?

Culture makes your brain better

Switch off the Top 20, switch on some Classic FM.

However, this study is poorly designed.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-04-culture-brain.html

In the case of dyslexia in particular…

ah.

You can’t draw normative assumptions from a pathological population.
This reminds me of the billionaire’s breakfast articles.

It’s well-known nowadays that dyslexia was just the old PC term for low IQ.

The new one is ADD/ADHD.

I have covered this. People have studied this. It is no longer opinion.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/11/23/adhd-add-nurture-studies-to-piss-off-the-idiots/

back to this study

Comparing illiterate individuals and adult readers highlights repeatedly just how much learning to read changes our brains. 

No, it’s a personality of the highly intelligent, who are more likely to read than the normal population.

You’re comparing above and below average, cutting out the middle.

No wonder you had a significant result!

Sampling bias, children, look for it.

On the other hand, you can also test for those traits and they have biological bases too.
Different sides of the same phenomena.

https://psychcentral.com/blog/how-reading-lights-up-your-mind/

back to study

According to a study by French and Spanish researchers, people who are unable or barely able to read not only find analysing sequences of letters more difficult – they have similar difficulty processing sequences of images.

Literally like a monkey.

The difference between a human and non-human primate’s brain is its “difficulty processing.” Language is symbolic. Symbolism isn’t something they’ve really evolved for, their culture is crude to show for it.

I bet they couldn’t find funding for that study. It would actually help the illiterate though. Head Start didn’t work because it assumed too much about the brains’ equality to begin with. It’s amazing how upset people get when you frankly acknowledge evolution in the broadest sense and the personal genetic one. Regarding biology cases.

Oh but Christians are the bigots.

Atavism does exist in some cases, I have linked to language studies previously and language has a genetic basis too, and some of those genes which are halted in the individual organism will code for brain function.

Brain function or destruction (noise). We shouldn’t lie to brain damage patients about what is wrong with them. It’s like telling a person in a wheelchair that they aren’t praying hard enough.

A further study in Portugal found that illiterate persons also find it harder to distinguish how an object is oriented in space—for example, a hammer depicted diagonally, where the head and handle can point in various directions.

Compare them to a chimp.

No, I’m totally serious.

Watch this thing.

Animal models are the only answer.

According to my lawyers.

Working memory is a significant component of IQ, yes. The researchers above are intentionally hiding this from the public. PC culture is killing off scientific curiosity. Asking particular questions about abnormal performance groups is considered ‘hate speech’ although it needn’t be enforced more than socially. You can’t have censorship without censoring censure. Whatever happened to let’s agree, to disagree? AKA the non-bigoted response.

Only the wrong fear they can’t persuade an audience if their opponent is allowed to speak.

Cultures are defined by what they oppose (hatred). Diseases by what is damaged.

You cannot understand their work without salient facts on the subjects.

If you are uncomfortable with discussing those, work in something else?

Being nice will just doom them to more of the same or worse suffering. If a sufferer’s ego is more important than their condition, maybe they were misdiagnosed. The more rotting degrading aspect of political correctness is its perversion of medicine, where recently they’ve been forced to treat disease like a good thing.

You are not your illness. It isn’t personal. There is something wrong with you. Common sense? Diseases shouldn’t have PR campaigns. Technically, there is no such thing as mental illness, it’s just illness presenting with psychological symptoms. Stop distinguishing where there is NO objective difference.

Neither is a person with a condition an automatic Saint beyond reproach. It absolves you of sweet FA. Look up how many disabled people are physically violent to their carers. The PR groups cover it up. So much for caring.

The standards of reality don’t drop, they get higher. Society’s should reflect this. If they really are ill, they shouldn’t be happy about it! That sounds an awful lot like malingering. If their condition magically presents exceptions when they have a desirable motivation, they do not have that condition.

To de-stigmatize disease runs contrary to the entirety of medicine.
Stigma encourages people to seek help and last through treatments.
To glamorize disease is evil. At the least it induces helplessness. It promotes human suffering, it’s vicious and cruel and inhumane.

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/medical+model

His diabetes isn’t a disease, that’s mean! You should be locked up for saying this person is any different from another person!

No, because if there’s nothing wrong with them, they cannot be treated differently. They cannot be made allowances, treated specially socially and especially, given any money.

Being a victim (different from the norm) is something you’ll have to accept if you want the recognition of that status. You cannot be both normal and abnormal, bad and good, special and ordinary. It is impossible.

We shouldn’t be listening to the mentally ill’s opinion of their own conditions anyway. With mental disease, they cannot see it clearly, that’s the whole sodding point! Otherwise, there’d be no need for a whole profession, you could send them back home to toddle off and spend a little time on WebMD before ordering their junk off of ebay.

You have to be dominant in a power hierarchy over them, to HEAL them.

nb Programming is not a difficult skill, as you can see. It’s called a code monkey for a reason. Any idiot could learn it with enough time.

There is no shortage. Look at India’s population demographics for proof positive of that.

back to study, minor notes

Practised readers can only guess at the disadvantages faced by those who have never had the chance to learn to read and write.

Wait. Wait, you DID control for race, right?

If you’re comparing East Coast Jews in prep school to some rural Indian girl, that isn’t scientific.

You control by age, race, sex and education, maybe class (or some proxy like diet) This is basic medical methodology. You can’t do anything less and say it counts.

You don’t look for prostate cancer in middle-aged women and report zero findings.

Well, maybe these people do.

Have you seen their national IQs? Ninety-fucking-five.

Why don’t researchers study themselves?

Why not? EVER.

What are they afraid of?

One area to which little attention has been paid is the cognitive tests used by doctors to diagnose early stage dementia in the elderly.

brain damage, like I said

Greek researcher Mary H. Kosmidis points out that these tests are designed for people who are literate.

How high is that horse? Shaming people for reading, FFS…. now I’ve seen it all.

The abilities they test are often trained by reading and writing, and results from these tests are likely to be skewed accordingly when employed on individuals who are illiterate. In Europe, there are still numerous older people in particular who are unable to read and write.

Prove they are trained before you claim that. Sociologist’s fallacy.

You can’t just say it’s nurture automatically, you have to rule out nature first.

He argues that the effects of

~~no~~

literacy do not end when children have learnt to read, but that it has profound and lasting effects on their cognition and knowledge.

If you’re born into a society that lasted long enough to become prosperous and prosocial enough to teach you to read, your genetic load must be low. Test that and then get cocky about how we need a new Head Start for the world.

Start with the small fish, like reducing corruption in Asia. India has a billion people, many illiterate but the Government is useless. Genetic load leads to cultural problems including corruption. I can’t prove that but I have seen no study to refute it. The disease rate backs me up. There is a connection (also to cleanliness).

Cleaner societies are less corrupt.

https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/06/why-is-the-anglosphere-less-corrupt.html

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

The hilarity of “perceptions” to one side, given the topic.

Notice anything about the Top 10?

One race is decidedly over-represented. Looking for genetic explanations (the hardest science here) would require scholarship, a set of balls and a mighty big calculator.

China is at the same ranking as Brazil. Go look. Keep scrolling….

Sure, I believe HK/China’s self-reported IQs. As they position below Greece on corruption…

Back to the study for the last of the lies.

The ability to read and write is essential to the ability to analyse complex problems

no

other way around

and you know it

The ability to process information is essential to learning many skills, including reading and writing. Pick up a biology textbook sometime. Babies can process in the WOMB.

No Cat on the Mat there, bitch.

Why do schools have sets, if we’re all the same in the brain? Why have year-based classes? Isn’t that oppressive?

and for the flow of ideas and critical thinking.

Since English is the most complex language, doesn’t that mean it’s racist?

Aren’t you basically saying that simpler languages are for idiots? Or certain language speakers (subraces) cannot think properly?

Or maybe, as in the studies of the genes, language is fucking genetic you potatoes.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/409215/the-genetics-of-language/

It facilitates informed public debate and sensible collective decision-making.

no, IQ

higher IQ people also vote more

http://anepigone.blogspot.co.uk/2008/09/iq-and-voter-turnout.html

from

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/06/12/data-drive-iq-immigrants-and-economy-prosperity/

And education isn’t a proxy for IQ either
https://iea.org.uk/are-brexit-voters-really-less-intelligent-than-remainers/
found that exams had become progressively easier over the last ten years, with exam boards competing for business by making it easier for pupils to obtain higher grades.”

What’s the average IQ of each university (total/students) and their vote? Compared to subject requirement minimum? (not UCAS points)

What you want is a magical POP! where all the severely mutated genes die out. You want a higher proportion of genes in the country for higher IQ on average. It doesn’t work that way. It’s a process, a eugenic process.

We have had a few pandemics to get there in NW Europe, hanging to finish off the remainder (High Time Pref) and I don’t think you’d like them.

The more literate people are, the better they are able to exercise control over public affairs and contribute to genuinely democratic government.

Democracy isn’t bottom up. They only want literacy to continue the brainwash train.

The average man on the street doesn’t care how the streets are paved, just that they are. We should not all become mini despots, politicians on a micro scale. That’s what SJWs are and it makes them mad. Little control freak thought police drunk on the facade of power of a Little Emperor. No. Make the representatives transparent (no NGO bribes) to the nation and accountable (for outcomes) and legally responsible, personally. Everyone else is responsible for what happens on their watch at work. Actually represent the tax payers. Yes, the tax payers, and NOT the voters. It is the taxpayers’ money they spend, NOT the voters’.

They used to mean the same thing. No longer.

Aside from a citizenship model, anyone who pays tax in this country should be allowed to vote on what it’s spent on. If you don’t care enough to earn enough to pay in, you don’t care enough to take an interest in how it’s paid out (self-interest needs to be shamed but every vote is by nature, self-interest incarnate). Yet it’s self-interest backed by investment.

Back to the corruption index.

23 France (LOL)

24 UAE

28 Israel

31 Taiwan

50 Rwanda

60 Cuba

60 Italy

64 South Africa

69 Greece

75 Turkey

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/915392/turkey-join-european-union-membership-tayyip-erdogan-jean-claude-juncker-donald-tusk-talks

79 Brazil

79 China

79 India

166 Venezuela

173 Syria (those lovely refugees)

Chromosomes make culture, including language

Language is genetic, and it’s racial.

https://www.mpg.de/19395/Language_genetics

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/409215/the-genetics-of-language/
FOXP2 mutations exist in humans and we still count them as human despite the devolution (atavism) being common to chimps. For the same reason you can look like a long-dead relative, humans can have pre-human mutations. This is likely the (un-PC) explanation behind retardation and certain other disability in the nervous system. You’ve heard people can be maladapted for the modern world (low IQ) well, how about maladapted in any environment? Full stop. In every generation, those mutations re-emerge but less so over time since they don’t procreate.

“They connected FOXP2 to more than 200 genes that control the development of neurons, the release of neurotransmitters that send messages between nerves, and the changes in synapses that underlie learning and memory. Some of these genes will very likely turn out to be involved in speech and language.”
When people act like one gene between two groups isn’t a big deal, you can tell they’re thinking in ratios and not in biology. Your heuristic of enough is wrong.
“Geschwind has been captivated by this asymmetry, and by its relationship to handedness. Roughly 90 percent of us are right-handed, and nearly all righties depend on that left “perisylvian” region for speech and language. (About 40 percent of lefties instead rely on the right peri­sylvian region or use both hemispheres.) “There’s some kind of benefit to the kind of processing that’s going on in language–which is extremely rapid processing–to keep everything in one circuit in one hemisphere,” he concludes.”
Handedness being genetic and based on the nervous system. The brain is also part of the nervous system.
That would be the logical next step, to use the full brain. There are no racial studies on handedness.
“Francks and his colleagues could not corroborate that suggestion, but they did find a region of chromosome 2 that seemed linked to left-handedness. They then examined the DNA of pairs of healthy left-handed brothers: the same linkage to chromosome 2 surfaced, evidence that a gene or genes in that region might influence handedness.”
Again, one chromosome and a huge effect.
“They found four DNA differences that distinguished the schizophrenics from the mentally healthy lefties; the location of these variations led them to a gene called LRRTM1. Geschwind collaborated in the work that helped identify where in the human brain LRRTM1 was turned on, or expressed: it probably helps shape forebrain structures and influences how neurons connect.”
Imagine if we applied these methods to other concepts.
Neurogenetics.
“Moving from correlations between genes and disorders to knowledge of the neural circuitry that allows a human but not a chimp to ask, “To be, or not to be?” requires researchers to find connections between seemingly disparate findings.”
Like all races have a ton of Shakespeare level art. Where?
“Linguists and psychologists who have studied “talking apes,” including researchers who have taught them to communicate, stress that the animals rarely combine even two words into a semantic whole and never utter the type of complex “recursive” sentence–like this one–that embeds one thought in another.”
Possible to answer what is white by what is chimp?
These questions are old as Darwin. Genus>Species>Race. Undeniable. I can no less be non-white than a non-mammal.
“In the hope of beginning to explain this discrepancy, Geschwind investigated which genes are turned on in the brains of humans and in those of chimpanzees, our closest genetic relatives. He found hundreds of differences but had no way to determine which ones mattered–which were most significant in driving evolution and determining brain function. Overwhelmed, he turned to a mathe­matician friend at UCLA, Steve Horvath.
With Horvath’s guidance, Geschwind and his grad student Michael Oldham arrived at a new way to approach the problem. Rather than looking at differences between individual genes, they analyzed differences between networks of genes expressed at the same time.”
“It became startlingly clear not only which genes are uniquely human, but also which of those are most important.”
Race-mixing is risky because mutations are usually very bad for the fitness of the organism.
“Biologists believe that if proteins undergo little alteration over an evolutionary span of tens of millions of years, they must perform such essential functions that they simply cannot tolerate change.”
They aren’t as tailored to the old environment, or its pressures but the temporary social one.

Have you noticed African-Americans, left to their own devices, switch to speech patterns more common to Africa, compared with European Americans, who switch to European modes? It’s the little things. Bear in mind, this is after Africans were mixed for centuries.

Fake scientists are already trying to conflate language with racial classification, despite admitting you can learn if you start early enough, a language you wouldn’t naturally conform to.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01837-7
“the vast majority (97.3%) of individuals have mixed ancestry” then the term is meaningless, you’re conflating the species with the sub-species (race) and who are the exception?
“The data indicate that continents, ethno-linguistic groups, races, ethnicities, and individuals all show substantial ancestral heterogeneity. We estimated correlation coefficients ranging from 0.522 to 0.962 between ancestries and language families or branches.”
If language and race are so tied, if language is real…
“Initial efforts to characterize the movement of early humans in relation to ancestry grouped populations according to five geographical regions: Sub-Saharan Africa, Europe/the Middle East/Central Asia/South Asia, East Asia, Oceania, and the Americas. Subsequent analyses allowed for refinement of the genetic history of global ancestries, revealing regional structure through the identification of 7, 14, and 19 ancestries.”
And you don’t believe in race?
If you don’t believe in gravity, jump off a cliff. You’ll float.
The language/race correlation has clear genetic evidence elsewhere of causation and those same genes are also racial markers because races by geography differ in language structure.

Wait, so wouldn’t it work the other way? you ask, shitposting me.

Yes.

Yes, it would.

https://news.stanford.edu/2015/01/30/language-genes-compare-012915/

Multiregional?
Impossible…
“Now, scientists at Stanford and other universities have combined large databases of globally distributed linguistic and genetic data, revealing in greater detail how languages might change in parallel with genes.”
“Through an advanced statistical analysis, the authors found that geographic distance was linked to both genetic and phonemic distance. On average, the closer together two languages or two genetic samples were to one another, the more similar they were, even when the languages compared were not in the same language family.”
If genetic distance seems familiar, that’s the gap between races.
It doesn’t exist between sexes because a white woman can give birth to a white male, a white man can father a white female. Good luck trying that with race, if it isn’t genetic.

http://www.pnas.org/content/89/12/5620.full.pdf
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1003460
“Numerous studies of human populations in Europe and Asia have revealed a concordance between their extant genetic structure and the prevailing regional pattern of geography and language.”
Different people are different. Groundbreaking.
You can’t talk immigrants out of their genetic neural structures.
They won’t be uplifted being surrounded by white people, they’ll sink lower and lower from inbreeding until their envy provokes a civil war. You can’t bus in new brains.

In other news, Lombroso’s concept of criminal atavism has largely been proven, with the genetics of criminology and behavioural genetics coming to the fore.

Update: I should’ve given you search terms.

Look up left realism, right realism, Instrumental Marxism and Marxist criminology. All of these are real. Why is crime so bad? Well… there are a lot of liars after that human rights money. Ignore biocriminology at your peril, but they care about all the new rape victims. At least, their bank manager cares a lot.

There’s nothing wrong with my writing style

Please, America.

Do your research before calling others illiterate?

http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/writing-style.html

And explains a meme.

Another hacker habit is a tendency to distinguish between ‘scare’ quotes and ‘speech’ quotes; that is, to use British-style single quotes for marking and reserve American-style double quotes for actual reports of speech or text included from elsewhere. Interestingly, some authorities describe this as correct general usage, but mainstream American English has gone to using double-quotes indiscriminately enough that hacker usage appears marked [and, in fact, I thought this was a personal quirk of mine until I checked with Usenet —ESR] One further permutation that is definitely not standard is a hackish tendency to do marking quotes by using apostrophes (single quotes) in pairs; that is, ’like this’. This is modelled on string and character literal syntax in some programming languages (reinforced by the fact that many character-only terminals display the apostrophe in typewriter style, as a vertical single quote).”

There seems to be a meta-rule behind these nonstandard hackerisms to the effect that precision of expression is more important than conformance to traditional rules; where the latter create ambiguity or lose information they can be discarded without a second thought. It is notable in this respect that other hackish inventions (for example, in vocabulary) also tend to carry very precise shades of meaning even when constructed to appear slangy and loose. In fact, to a hacker, the contrast between ‘loose’ form and ‘tight’ content in jargon is a substantial part of its humor!

One of these is that TEXT IN ALL CAPS IS INTERPRETED AS ‘LOUD’, and this becomes such an ingrained synesthetic reflex that a person who goes to caps-lock while in talk mode may be asked to “stop shouting, please, you’re hurting my ears!”.”

“There is a semantic difference between *emphasis like this* (which emphasizes the phrase as a whole), and *emphasis* *like* *this* (which suggests the writer speaking very slowly and distinctly, as if to a very young child or a mentally impaired person). Bracketing a word with the ‘*’ character may also indicate that the writer wishes readers to consider that an action is taking place or that a sound is being made. Examples: *bang*, *hic*, *ring*, *grin*, *kick*, *stomp*, *mumble*.”

“Hackers also mix letters and numbers more freely than in mainstream usage. In particular, it is good hackish style to write a digit sequence where you intend the reader to understand the text string that names that number in English. So, hackers prefer to write ‘1970s’ rather than ‘nineteen-seventies’ or ‘1970’s’ (the latter looks like a possessive).”

It should also be noted that hackers exhibit much less reluctance to use multiply-nested parentheses than is normal in English. Part of this is almost certainly due to influence from LISP (which uses deeply nested parentheses (like this (see?)) in its syntax a lot), but it has also been suggested that a more basic hacker trait of enjoying playing with complexity and pushing systems to their limits is in operation.”

“Perhaps in response to this, experienced netters often display a sort of conscious formal politesse in their writing that has passed out of fashion in other spoken and written media (for example, the phrase “Well said, sir!” is not uncommon).

Many introverted hackers who are next to inarticulate in person communicate with considerable fluency over the net, perhaps precisely because they can forget on an unconscious level that they are dealing with people and thus don’t feel stressed and anxious as they would face to face.”

Don’t be a Twitter bitch and correct others’ form when you don’t understand the jokes.
I’m not illiterate in my native tongue. I’m not stupid. You are.