Am I gonna have to be the one to say this? Apparently. Ugh.
It’s no more novel than dog ‘breeds’ aka races. They also have inbreeding depression from the admixture (why it’s called mixing) and mixed race (aka mongrel) fertility issues, like ligers.
Anyone who denies this fact about selective breeding literature is literally anti-Darwin (or just plain ignorant) and against the evolutionary paradigm itself, in biology.
It’s not just in Charles Darwin’s most famous work, it’s cited in chapter ONE, you brainlets!
Teach the book in biology or none of the subject makes sense. It’s the paradigm of brain development, we can see it in scans! It’s definitely at least somewhat real when it dictates how a precious foetus develops.
pre-contents: “In 1843-44 Professor Haldeman (“Boston Journal of Nat. Hist. U. States”, vol. iv, page 468) has ably given the arguments for and against the hypothesis of the development and modification of species: he seems to lean toward the side of change.”
“CHAPTER I. VARIATION UNDER DOMESTICATION.”
Literally the sodding chapter, and the first one!
Also, humans are a species, stop calling us a race. Homo Sapiens is a SPECIES.
It’s a quote gold mine!
and I don’t just mean the Sub-title:
“THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.”
Fitness is real, yo.
“When we look to the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants, and compare them with closely allied species, we generally perceive in each domestic race, as already remarked, less uniformity of character than in true species.Domestic races often have a somewhat monstrous character; by which I mean, that, although differing from each other and from other species of the same genus, in several trifling respects, they often differ in an extreme degree in some one part, both when compared one with another, and more especially when compared with the species under nature to which they are nearest allied. With these exceptions (and with that of the perfect fertility of varieties when crossed—a subject hereafter to be discussed), domestic races of the same species differ from each other in the same manner as do the closely allied species of the same genus in a state of nature, but the differences in most cases are less in degree. This must be admitted as true, for the domestic races of many animals and plants have been ranked by some competent judges as the descendants of aboriginally distinct species, and by other competent judges as mere varieties. If any well marked distinction existed between a domestic race and a species, this source of doubt would not so perpetually recur. It has often been stated that domestic races do not differ from each other in characters of generic value. It can be shown that this statement is not correct; but naturalists differ much in determining what characters are of generic value; all such valuations being at present empirical. When it is explained how genera originate under nature, it will be seen that we have no right to expect often to find a generic amount of difference in our domesticated races.”
For those who missed the obvious, mixed is not a race. They’re raceless. To argue otherwise is category error because a race is a mutually exclusive classification.
re de novo mutations:
“Some naturalists have maintained that all variations are connected with the act of sexual reproduction; but this is certainly an error; for I have given in another work a long list of “sporting plants;” as they are called by gardeners; that is, of plants which have suddenly produced a single bud with a new and sometimes widely different character from that of the other buds on the same plant. These bud variations, as they may be named, can be propagated by grafts, offsets, etc., and sometimes by seed. They occur rarely under nature, but are far from rare under culture. As a single bud out of many thousands produced year after year on the same tree under uniform conditions, has been known suddenly to assume a new character; and as buds on distinct trees, growing under different conditions, have sometimes yielded nearly the same variety—for instance, buds on peach-trees producing nectarines, and buds on common roses producing moss-roses—we clearly see that the nature of the conditions is of subordinate importance in comparison with the nature of the organism in determining each particular form of variation; perhaps of not more importance than the nature of the spark, by which a mass of combustible matter is ignited, has in determining the nature of the flames.”
This shit even applies to FLOWERS.
“The laws governing inheritance are for the most part unknown;
no one can say why the same peculiarity in different individuals of the same species, or in different species, is sometimes inherited and sometimes not so;
germline mutation or not e.g. parental age factor
why the child often reverts in certain characteristics to its grandfather or grandmother or more remote ancestor;
why a peculiarity is often transmitted from one sex to both sexes, or to one sex alone, more commonly but not exclusively to the like sex.
chromosomes and brain development
It is a fact of some importance to us, that peculiarities appearing in the males of our domestic breeds are often transmitted, either exclusively or in a much greater degree, to the males alone. A much more important rule, which I think may be trusted, is that, at whatever period of life a peculiarity first appears, it tends to reappear in the offspring at a corresponding age, though sometimes earlier. In many cases this could not be otherwise; thus the inherited peculiarities in the horns of cattle could appear only in the offspring when nearly mature; peculiarities in the silk-worm are known to appear at the corresponding caterpillar or cocoon stage. But hereditary diseases and some other facts make me believe that the rule has a wider extension, and that, when there is no apparent reason why a peculiarity should appear at any particular age, yet that it does tend to appear in the offspring at the same period at which it first appeared in the parent.
genetics are timed in expression, phenotype
he’s been proven correct ever since, it’s amazing
I believe this rule to be of the highest importance in explaining the laws of embryology. These remarks are of course confined to the first APPEARANCE of the peculiarity, and not to the primary cause which may have acted on the ovules or on the male element;
referring to gamete mutation, especially in sperm
predicting parental age factor over a century before it was mathematically confirmed
in nearly the same manner as the increased length of the horns in the offspring from a short-horned cow by a long-horned bull, though appearing late in life, is clearly due to the male element.
If Christians think humans are special as a species and foetuses while developing are too, they need evolutionary arguments for that. You’re dropping the ball by not using these facts.
Having alluded to the subject of reversion,
also regression to the mean, but Galton already covered that (legit polymath)
I may here refer to a statement often made by naturalists—namely, that our domestic varieties, when run wild, gradually but invariably revert in character to their aboriginal stocks. Hence it has been argued that no deductions can be drawn from domestic races to species in a state of nature.”
All quotes from early chapter 1.
When I use the word evolution, or related TECHNICAL words like race, my definition is correct because I read the literature which explains what these things mean.
There was sultry or alluring but it was a type of beauty, as it should be.
That’s natural (whereas mainstream ‘hotness’ is normally plastic surgery, which a biologist has no valid comment on as a fashion trend).
Natural always wins. It’s the genetic billboard.
Nowadays, men are programmed to find the cheap sexual signals of desperation attractive.
Cheap is the correct term because there’s little to no investment required.
It’s obvious with celebrities.
Jessica Alba. Note the manjaw. Hot?
Markle. Again with the manjaw. Hot?
What are you being told to select by media?
The Jewess Johansson, post-nosejob. Hot?
The Jewess Jolie, same. Again, post-surgery and owns a manjaw. Hot?
There’s a reason he didn’t name names or dare show photos.
Hollywood only hires the whores, with manjaws. There’s no control group.
Another chameleon face to illustrate the point:
Which one of those four pictures is hot and how many are beautiful?
I’d say one “hot” and zero beautiful. The hotness is confounded by make-up and hair dye, which he didn’t mention!
Nor did he mention male beauty, which obviously does exist.
I see it all the time.
e.g. Jakob Hybholt. This is a real man. He exists.
Men in studies have different risks of abusing their spouse (aggression) based on their facial features. Again, something you’d think he’d mention?
At least “handsome” (a word that used to be applied to women too) versus “sexy”.
Adonis versus Hercules. Any man who’d get insecure about this is deluded.
We don’t get insecure about Athena and Aphrodite. Typical model versus lingerie model.
But they’re both forms of beauty. Neither is better and it really is a spectrum because both must be fundamentally fit (Darwin) and hence, beautiful. So two sisters, one can be hotter (the “hot one”) and the other more pretty, hot features age badly after ten years as fertile markers and pretty remains constant as a purer genetic quality, easier to pass on to male and female offspring too. Hotness has no history as a concept, as he alludes it’s based in 60s advertising. Surgeons can fake “hot” but never beautiful because it’s genetic and individual. The 60s allowed people to display “hot” but again, that’s a fashion trend, our bodies didn’t magically change.
This evobio guy makes a basic error – you can”t assume modern male preferences are historic.
In fact, basic pop culture evidence from the past century suggests otherwise.
“Hotness” is easier to market.
You can buy hotness, beauty is genetic.
He blatantly lies “the majority of human cultures have been polygynous” is a lie.
A Cultural Marxist myth. Look at a family tree, we have them stretching back a thousand years.
He could possibly get away with polygamous if you included sex slavery (rape).
That is bad evolutionary biology. Sexual selection must be a choice to be valid.
Most tribal humans were monogamous and this is why the sexes are born approximately at 50/50, we keep digging up archaeological evidence of couples. Also, savages are not models of civilization, they keep trying that on.
He could mean serial monogamy if the spouse dies (divorce or breaking up doesn’t actually count as this) but he doesn’t.
Most men are not r-selected, he lies again. If so, all men would visit brothels instead of the omega minority. Parental investment outcomes show this strawman single mother scenario leads to death and dysfunction.
Mathematically, he is lying there. Monogamy is better for male DNA.
No sexual selection without natural selection, many feeble, weak r-selected males died off and now we have “crime” in society because they’re still bluntly, stupidly trying to compete without the reward in a society structure. Wars were invented to cull them but we had to mess that up too with draft qualifications and nukes. Without the dregs of men (see: where have all the good men gone?) removed, they are free to multiply with the dregs of women, producing more dregs than ever before. Previously, those women would die alone with no suitable man.
It’s like pulling up weeds.
Idiocracy could only happen when war ceased being common. Who dies first in battle?
Reproduction is the reward (not sex), for survival.
He hints at the rapist strategy of extreme r-types but dances around it. If men would find sex “difficult to resist” and could overpower a woman, surely that suggests…. that her choice didn’t factor into it?
That’s why he refuses to discuss rapists, which are not a viable strategy actually*. He’s pretending there’s a selection without choice, I’m sick of these slutty intellectually dishonest assholes acting like they’re the model of humanity.
*Women can easily not carry to term by starvation, various herbs in every location, punching themselves in the stomach. Why do you think traumatized women stop feeling hungry? Anti-rape baby instinct!
Witches provided abortifacient herbs.
Men aren’t “wired” any way, that’s sexist and poor science (it’s a limited metaphor not used in this field) and it’s the naturalistic fallacy. Most men are faithful and generally good. They have a natural disgust for easy women.
Broadcasting hotness – is not a thing. That’s sexual desperation, a personal choice, not fertility. Plenty of American men willingly prefer infertile women and women who look like it (swollen breasts as if already pregnant, narrow hips, muscled suggesting high testosterone and manjaw, short legs like a child). Those are typical r-types, both trying to avoid pregnancy.
So as far as an evolutionary biologist is concerned, that sexual interaction doesn’t exist because it’s a dead end.
It’s like counting homosexual sex – that doesn’t lead to babies either!
There’s no life created, it’s nothing to them. Except maybe a disease risk, funny he doesn’t mention STD-caused infertility….
You cannot switch reproductive strategy, it’s neurobiological, ask Anonymous Conservative. Your amygdala volume cannot magically change on a dime.
This guy keeps lying.
You cannot have it all, spoiled rabbits.
There’s a reason manwhores, when they marry, tend to get divorced (or cheat). It’s them.
Neither can you turn a ho into a housewife, same reason. It’s them.
This is why the evolutionary types are distrusted in academia, you must prove you’re not one of these guys that is totally excusing half the promiscuity that is completely novel to society now (with fake history) while claiming from the other side of their face that the other half is impossible (women aren’t sluts – but men are sleeping with them somehow) because of babies that don’t exist. (Pre-marital birth rate says different).
Other, lesser mammals were polygamous, not humans!
He doesn’t tell you this.
It would be akin to saying humans can self-clone because you used to be an amoeba, it’s bad science.
Read The Mating Mind for good evobio.
The concept of “hotness” (sciencey) isn’t mentioned.
This guy might as well be an astrologer. This is cold reading a modern culture and trying to re-write history.
He also misrepresents Freud. Madonna/Whore is a specific complex and has nothing to do with that.
Madonna is marrying a woman for reputation then cheating on her with whores because the male is too immature to view the mother of his children as a viable sexual and romantic outlet, abandoning her emotionally and sexually in fear. The complex is the split (between socially attractive women to other men and baby-making women at home) and it’s as bad for you as a split personality. That’s it. That’s the complex. It describes a common form of impotence.
They can’t get it up for the wife they chose, assuming childbirth gave her cooties.
Nothing to do with evolution. This guy is full of shit.
Simple question: what is “hotness” without porn?
Do you even know? (no) That’s the purpose of sexual programming. The mind control nobody talks about. Insulting the father figure and telling him housewife types are boring in bed. Old as the musical Grease.
I’m surprised by this conversation between Joe and Bret. I’ve asked multiple men before if they could see someone as only aesthetically pleasing but not sexually pleasing, and they never could (including my boyfriend.)
True, they were lying, assuming the other could.
Women, on the other hand, always could.
Women are more attuned to appearance in general.
Men don’t notice cuticles.
I can find a man or woman aesthetically pleasing, without seeing them as sexually pleasing. Seems like most men either find them sexually pleasing or they don’t.
If they’re honest.
An erection is a solid binary.
If they don’t find them sexually pleasing, they don’t find them aesthetically pleasing either. ‘I would fuck it or I would not fuck it.’ Lots of guys can’t seem to appreciate attractiveness without it being of a sexual nature. This conversation seems like it’s on similar lines as the question I’ve asked people before and yet both men were able to grasp it. Good on them
Men who can are called gay.
That’s why I laughed when they tried to compete by claiming they could do it.
Sluts are shamed because the entire tribe pays for it. Male or female.
Men have to pay with resources taken from the family or possibly a war in revenge for stealing a woman.
Then there’s disease risk, a major source of the shame is avoiding death and defects.
Many STDs are just passed by social contact and as a touchy species, viruses spread easily with hugs, kisses, grooming common to mammals.
I personally think the people who use the word hot to describe women are immature and shallow. I have noticed that the more people use words like that to describe people the worse off our future will be.
It’s so cringe-worthingly American, isn’t it? They sound like rappers.
Not just women, if all a man can be is hot, he must be a real loser.
It’s the one thing you can call a vapid moron. “At least he’s hot”.
Women use it this way primarily, it’s our new ‘nice’. It’s a backhanded compliment, like telling someone they could be a stripper. (Tatum)
These people are so condescending and boring
They think they’re important. E-celebs, aw. Adding nothing to history.
He totally ignored the data on how much women value looks.
Are these two fools trying to pass off this non-think as if it were based on biological fact? Women have a much greater capacity for sex than men.
Shh, don’t tell them! (They won’t listen anyway, they actually think sex is a male thing).
Imagine if men had multiple orgasms and no refractory period, chaos!
It’s like how they say women get triggered easily but if you insult Rick & Morty…
You don’t see many unstable women threatening to rape men online but okay, women are the mad ones. Okay.
“The survey – based on interviews with more than 121,000 people – contradicts the perception that lesbians and gays are mostly white, urban and affluent, said lead author Gary Gates.”
“‘But this data reveals that relative to the general population, the LGBT population has a larger proportion of non-white people and clearly is not overly wealthy.’”
In evolutionary terms, you don’t have to raise children you can’t make.
I cannot find survey data on what percentage of mixed race people aren’t straight. That is weird.
It’s basic demographics, why is that buried?
You would think they’d shout it from the rooftops.
But parents want grandkids, don’t they? Or their own investment is worthless.
“Very little research has been done into which races are more likely to be homosexual.”
That sounds likely.
“Estimates of the proportion of the population who are lesbian or gay range from 2 per cent to 10 per cent, although recent US surveys have put it at around 4 per cent.
In 2010, a survey by the Office for National Statistics concluded that 1.5 per cent of Britons identified themselves as gay or bisexual, although a 2008 poll put the proportion at 6 per cent.”
If you sample urban gay areas, your data will be skewed.
“The concept of continuity was harnessed to growing attention to miscegenation, or “amalgamation,” in social science writing in the first decades of the twentieth century. Edward Byron Reuter’s The Mulatto in the United States, for instance, pursued an exhaustive quantitative and comparative study of the mulatto population and its achievements in relation to those of “pure” white or African ancestry.”
That bias isn’t science, it’s propaganda.
How little he turned up is great negative evidence though.
Spot the frauds.
“Xavier Mayne, for example, one of the earliest American advocates of homosexual rights, wrote, “Between whitest of men and the blackest negro stretches out a vast line of intermediary races as to their colours: brown, olive, red tawny, yellow.” He then invoked this model of race to envision a continuous spectrum of gender and sexuality: “Nature abhors the absolute, delights in the fractional. . . . Intersexes express the half-steps, the between-beings ”
Most hermaphrodites are infertile.
We evolve FOR one thing and AGAINST another.
Nature loves the absolute, bears can’t breathe underwater.
You evolve for ONE ecosystem at the EXCLUSION of all else.
This is Origin of the Species tier, old biology. This guy’s anti-evolution.
“In this analogy, Mayne reversed dominant cultural hierarchies that privileged purity over mixture. Drawing upon irrefutable evidence of the “natural” existence of biracial people,”
What about the evidence of their fertility issues?
And there’s no such thing as irrefutable in biology on the level of individuals.
Real identity problem, huh?
If race doesn’t matter, why pretend you have one?
Miscellaneous is not a category, that’s a category error.
Why have racial pride if that’s the root of evil to you?
And how can atheists believe pride is a sin?
“Mayne posited a direct analogy to a similarly mixed body, the intersex, which he positioned as a necessary presence within the natural order.”
False equivalence. Naturalistic fallacy.
You can see the slow creep of genocidal rhetoric.
Pure races have a human birthright to exist in their homeland, invader.
If you want the whites kicked out of Africa but not the blacks from America, you’re a massive hypocrite.
They’d be scared to put me on trial because they’d be forced to admit I’m correct.
On court records for the next thousand years.
It felt churlish to point this out before, I considered it obvious.
We use the term race to be polite, technically they don’t have one.
However, circumstances compel me to explain.
They believe in superiority but not race (mixed isn’t a race).
That is irrational.
The rhetoric that “mixed race are superior” is absurd on many levels.
Here’s one, the most biological and side-stepping value judgements.
A few sharper ones claim to be raceless, this is true.
As updated for clarity:
A race evolves over millennia in precise environments and overcoming specific (natural) selection events, it’s like saying you invented a primary colour. A human group can’t evolve in ALL/NO environment, especially with no advantageous mutational benefit to the organism’s fitness (why I emphasize health).
Mate selection requires informed consent. Medicine isn’t telling them about these things until it’s too late and they experience the problems firsthand. With no warning.
Naturally, not knowing the information (usually they are never told!), they’ll tend to blame themselves as individual parents when it’s really the mating strategy combination. It used to cause health problems in royalty too, since they’d marry across vast distances. Repeating the behaviour made it cumulative. They became too inbred by outbreeding too much, narrowing to a smaller and smaller niche of potential breeding partners with every generation.
There are no separate human groupings (sub-species) made from pre-existing groups! It’s logically impossible! It’s a little like cutting a slice of cake and acting like it’s a new, whole cake. The genetic tree doesn’t sprout from air!
It’s called a phylogenetic tree and I made you one to illustrate my point.
See? I care.
This is the easy to read version because it fits well on the timeline of history.
Rest of the edit:
Genetically, they’re creating niche sub-subraces with severely restricted breeding opportunities (explaining the IVF rates) and I’ve yet to see a mixed race fertility study go into grandparents and great-grandparents, which could already be done.
Maybe it was done and never published.
Cult of silence.
Parental attitudes of mixed children would also be a thrilling read.
As a niche group whose rarer, more recessive mutations are swiftly lost in the blend, we would expect their fertility overall to drop with each generation (this includes mixed White and could explain secular America below replacement level).
A Northern Italian subrace man mixed with an Austrian subrace woman is mixed race (of the White European thede) but we never think of it that accurate way, do we?
We think of a more PC form of mulatto, which is narrower and limited as an idea.
(50% “black”/50% “white” and up to two generations applicable tops).
They’re toying with the definitions of the levels.
Again, because I love you. I want you to understand. Origin of the Species isn’t on the national school curriculum, causing me to write in full earnest. Someone must tell you.
Subraces you have likely heard of includes Celts, Picts, Basque, Angles, Saxons, Normans, the Cornish and so on.
The modern concept of “mixed race” is false in every conceivable permutation.
Tell me, where do they fit in? On the tree, show me. Where’s the root? Nobody is allowed to ask about the details because it’s political, it isn’t scientific.
A liger is neither a lion nor a tiger. Those are exclusive categories.
We’re defining them by their parents for linguistic convenience.
They are a mix of their parent’s race/s (evolved identity) but they themselves as an individual organism don’t have one.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of novel sub-subraces. Precise combinations. It depends the fine-grain you want. The mixed part itself is also a category error because it lumps them all in together.
An individual whose mixture is of Celt, Basque, Alpine and Nord heritage has nothing in common neither biologically nor culturally with a combination in one individual of Sub-Saharan African, Aboriginal Australian, Inuit, Yayoi and South American.
Yet they’d lead you to believe this (lie).
It’s called a voting bloc.
Sometimes you can destroy many group’s unique interests by making them sacrifice for a larger group they don’t truly belong to (Empires fall).
Politically, they’re being played because each type will have its own issues and needs and this means none can truly be studied (similar to how most clinical trials are done on men and there are medical problems* applying their findings to women).
Subraces arose naturally in evolutionary history, they evolved. Their mutations are stable because they’ve weathered thousands of years of events including war or since gone extinct.
This artificial combination called both mixed (too ambiguous) and race (just no, too specific and wrong) when it is neither, is novel (practically born yesterday, unproven) and in mutational terms, that isn’t a good thing.
Surely people deserve to know this information as teenagers or earlier before they consider how to marry?
A lot of people, when thinking of who should father/mother their children, consider the child’s health their primary concern. This is too important to ignore. Studies must be conducted, the burden of proof is directly heaped upon those making the positive claims e.g. sunny Pollyanna health and life outcomes, magically.
From what little I can find on the subject, the evidence points in quite the opposite trajectory.
Whatever happened to consent?
It’s a clear public interest case especially where healthcare is taxpayer funded.
Assuming you want governments lead by science than superstition?
While I’m here “there’s one race, the human race” is bullshit, I trust you knew that too?
Homo is our genus, sapiens our species. Humans/humanity/mankind is a species.
We have a race (or not). We are always a species.
If you want to deny your brain, (sapiens), go ahead!
It’s totally unscientific to say “human race”, in fact, it’s anti-science.
Congratulations, if you use that term seriously you’re a Creationist.
A liberal Creationist.
An ancient term of philosophical speculation (in Leucippus, Democritus); revived scientifically 1805 by British chemist John Dalton. In late classical and medieval use also a unit of time, 22,560 to the hour.
Edit: to really put the cat among the pigeons, advocates of a raceless world are genophobic.
Contrary to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/genophilia and scientific.
They personally fear breeding with their own kind but an extension of the term would easily apply to a strong sociosexual aversion to one’s own people, culture or kin. Expansions happen all the time if there’s a need in behaviour (see ‘gay’).
OR geno-cidal, a willful termination of their group included, which we knew.
The fact a man’s balls are so readily available during rape to twist or to crush with the fist and rupture, means that evolution gave women natural defenses against rape.
It’s just science, goys.
Postmodernism is stupid. Status signalling is for beta twats. Yet everything modern I do is moral and natural, even the anal sex (but it’s gross to a man) and I am alpha, greatest status signal based in scientism of them all!
According to Darwin, the antisocial rapists are prone to natural selection, not sexual. If it were sexual, that would be rejection… and damn, if that ain’t what we see.
Remember ladies, avoiding men with rape fantasies just makes you a bitch!
Displeasing any man, at any time, is proof you’re the problem!
Actually, women exist in archaeology prior to men. They didn’t bother to check?
Parthenogenesis. Men are the aberration, the mutants. Read a book?
Technically, humans are determined by woman. Women do not need men or their cells to reproduce themselves.
Ah, sweet, sweet womb envy.
All their shitty skyscrapers crumble but our bloodline is pure.
I hope artificial wombs come in because they’re so confident men would do better out of the situation where women are no longer vulnerable and therefore dependent on them. They really believe female dimorphism doesn’t reach the brain. Women are just like men but with a uterus. I guess neuroscience doesn’t exist, go home and be the best (opposite sex) you can be! Men would magically gain the mothering abilities of a female brain, which doesn’t exist. We’re all the same.
The fact you can grab a man’s beard means Mother Nature says he is meant to go down on you.
Next they’ll tell us pubes are a sign a woman is “too old”.
Pedo slavers waiting to happen. Ironically, they’ll get plenty of rape in prison, where they belong.
I am not one of those people who lie about Darwin. I encourage you to read the bloody books. Plural, this is the first one you start with or don’t use that word around me. Picture someone going on and on about cookery who doesn’t know how to crack an egg. That’s how you all sound.
The atheists are shit scared of this being required reading in schools.
That’s because it deals in fact and compares humans with other animals.
I know you’ll see my way if you have any capacity for logic and literacy.
Note: genes can jump within and between chromosomes within an organism.
“Jumping genes” so-called and ignored for decades.
This was discovered by a woman so don’t be shocked you weren’t taught it in school.
Note the passive-aggressive tagging of “Out of Africa”.
Those are Austin Powers quotemarks.
It has literally never been true.
This is so easy to debunk with a single piece of negative evidence nobody honest in archaeology should be pushing it still. They’re behind Multi-Regional, the DNA and all the bones support that.
There was no Adam and Eve, it was a story told to people who didn’t know what germs were. It had to be simplified.
And they certainly didn’t live in Africa when Africa didn’t exist at the time.
The landmass was Pangea and there’s no reason for humans to spawn so far south.
Many disease-based reasons to be northern though.
They basically only studied Russians. More studies needed.
Seven thousand five hundred fifty-six (7556) haplotypes of 46 subclades in 17 major haplogroups were considered in terms of their base (ancestral) haplotypes and timespans to their common ancestors, for the purposes of designing of time-balanced haplogroup tree. It was found that African haplogroup A (originated 132,000 ± 12,000 years before present) is very remote time-wise from all other haplogroups, which have a separate common ancestor, named β-haplogroup, and originated 64,000 ± 6000 ybp. It includes a family of Europeoid (Caucasoid) haplogroups from F through T that originated 58,000 ± 5000 ybp. A downstream common ancestor for haplogroup A and β-haplogroup, coined the α-haplogroup emerged 160,000 ± 12,000 ybp. A territorial origin of haplogroups α- and β-remains unknown; however, the most likely origin for each of them is a vast triangle stretched from Central Europe in the west through the Russian Plain to the east and to Levant to the south.
Haplogroup B is descended from β-haplogroup (and not from haplogroup A, from which it is very distant, and separated by as much as 123,000 years of “lateral” mutational evolution) likely migrated to Africa after 46,000 ybp. The finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from “African” haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that bearers of the Europeoid haplogroups, as well as all non-African haplogroups do not carry either SNPs M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262, M32, M59, P289, P291, P102, M13, M171, M118 (haplogroup A and its subclades SNPs) or M60, M181, P90 (haplogroup B), as it was shown recently in “Walk through Y” FTDNA Project (the reference is incorporated therein) on several hundred people from various haplogroups.
Reconsideration of the “Out of Africa” Concept as Not Having Enough Proof
This is an overview of the “Out of Africa” (OOA) concept and the concept is based upon experimental data. The article shows that said concept is based on data which are—as a rule—interpreted by the OOA proponents in a one-sided manner, that is to “prove” the OOA concept.
The fact they had to admit to multiple migrations shows they’re covering their arses.
The article shows how recent OOA studies (as well as earlier ones) employ biased interpretations to artificially “prove” the OOA concept. The article shows that the same data can be—and more justifiably—interpreted as incompatible with the OOA concept, and giving support for a “into Africa” concept. It seems that from times of Neanderthals (seemingly having pale skin and fair hair, based on the identified Neanderthal MCR1 melanocortin receptor), our ancestors, of both Africans and non-Africans current populations, lived outside of Africa, apparently in Eurasia or maybe in Europe.
Because it’s been years since I read the book, (it actually came out in 2014-2015, moron) I’m going to ‘review’ (rip to shreds cruelly) this review. [tldr: Y’ALL NEED HBD, JESUS.]
5,000-ish words. Putting the shit into shitposting.
Because I can.
I feel I’ve lost YEARS off my life doing this, like the machine in Princess Bitchin’ Bride.
That’s its name now.
They’re bigging up Charlton because so many others (including yours truly) did first. Happy little lemmings of the online trend.
I’m happy for him and his co, Genius Famine is a solid 4-star book. It’s actually K-selection, that missing puzzle piece, a norm of religiosity is a part of it, not the other way around. Also, excess religion kills everyone. Massive hypothetical problems right there. MOVING TAYLOR SWIFTLY ON.
WE NEED HARDER SCIENCES. It’s a little like porn, the soft stuff is never enough.
“intelligence is negatively correlated with genetic signs of high mutational load–such as an ‘asymmetrical’ (ugly) face”
I linked to that the other day lately, and I’m basically the ONLY person round these parts who calls it mutation load when the correct scientific nomenclature is ‘genetic load’. I thought mutation/al was more descriptive. I am one literary bitch. WHO is stealing my shit?
Naturally, the only solution to an unnatural, manmade boom is artificial eugenics. I digress. There isn’t even a bar cart in sight. It’s my inner alcoholic. Charlton tries so sincerely to answer an HBD question with philosophy, applying religion to (a problem of) evobiology is one of the funniest things I’ve ever heard. My linking to his blog was intended as a supplement, not the substantive meal. For that, look up key HBD authors. If God himself came down on a fluffy cloud and zapped people with lightning bolts like a rock star Zeus, it still wouldn’t change the fact DNA exists and evolutionary genus have undergone speciation. If God created everything, why is any of his creation a bad thing to you? Where is your faith? Why wouldn’t He want us to understand all the incredible detail He threw into this video game? He’s got the whole world in his hands. So technically, God is cupping your balls. Respect Him.
The Industrial Revolution is fingered in A Troublesome Inheritance (uncited) but the evidence to support it is limited. Sharing the technology seems to have been the problem, the profit motive. Releasing certain technologies puts them in the hands of the low-IQ by default. This doesn’t end well, see the concepts of game theory and the arms race for further details.
There were actually two sexual revolutions before the one we know of the 1960s. Boomers are not the pivotal generation of history. The 60’s finale is the nail in the Western coffin with the Long March Through the Institutions, as the brilliant minds of the prior century finally died off.
1 – The Romantic Movement of the early 1800s. You’ve heard of it, Byron? Suddenly feelings were more important than facts and everyone realized what a special snowflake they were.
2 – The Belle Epoque and a little beforehand. The lifetime of Oscar Wilde fits it neatly. Again, the postwar generosity of K-types to struggling unfit societies in the name of God is the problem. Yes, I posit that Missions from God are demonic. When you consider everything they spawned to the outgroup is suffering – from the continued spread of leprosy, booming and starving populations, the rise of HIV, NGO child rape scandals and various tribal wars over scarce resources, the do-gooders of the 19th century killed it for the whole world of the 20th onward, who have had a dependent child in the guilt over the Third World it created ever since. Prove me wrong, internet. I know you can’t.
There’s an academic book, about 500 pages, called Pathological Altruism if you wanna know the mindset behind dumb white people who selfishly think the whole world should aspire to be Just Like Them. As if that’s possible or desirable. It’s written by a woman though, so I don’t expect it to make the same splash in this part of the internet, that constantly complains there aren’t enough women (while insulting and ignoring our contributions, bc thinking tits are terrifying).
HBD answers the concerns about inter-class fertility/fecundity, because class is rather constant based on your genome down the centuries. As in, social mobility has its limits. You can look all this stuff up in your own sweet time, you are literally online to be reading this, you’ve got no excuse. This is forbidden science because it is predictive. The current paradigm of equalism is not. The factors mentioned in this article precisely fit into other topics.
Family size – time preference, present and historical age at marriage, cultural expectations, national wealth and debt. Therefore, you’d expect Western(er) fertility will NEVER rise until national debt is removed as a dysgenic pressure. Not one of you wankers boo-hooing over the future has mentioned this. Clarey got close.
Not as random as it sounds.
I say Westerner because Magic Dirt isn’t real and we don’t want to bring up fertility in the West using non-Westerners, who have their own homeland to despoil. People are not interchangeable cogs, personality is genetically heritable too! You can’t build high-trust healthy societies with people who prefer to marry their child cousins and rig elections.
Luther, while based AF, not so much, on these topics.
The word dysgenic isn’t used in these conversations either. Atheism may be dyscivic but agnosticism is a human right. The Pope hates this.
Personality metrics are as important as IQ. Plenty of the world’s leaders are above-average IQ, they know what they are doing. These are the Fifth Column.
By chance alone, they couldn’t keep doing exactly the wrong thing for the People.
There are many myths about Christian fertility. If you breed beyond your ability to provide, another tenet of the religion, then all the children and the entire family die. This happens quickly or slowly, with reduced prosperity and poor marital prospects in times of K-selection, that either cause no marriage to occur, sub-standard fertility in the non-assortative pair match, excess labour and no creative production (bad for epigenetics) and/or mutation accumulation. Time preference correlates to industriousness and what we now call grit but is essentially prudence. It’s tempting to claim Idiocracy! because listing pop culture in place of papers is part of the dumbing down you so despise but first you must understand what an Idiocracy is = r-selection.
The K-shift we are undergoing is a prelude to the Malthusian contraction of population better known as the Malthusian trap. Think the big toothy metal things in cartoons.
You cannot describe demographic patterns without the Malthusian trap.
Nobody cites the meme “demographics is destiny” when that’s obviously the topic too. If you’re trying to make the complex easy to remember for simple readers. I just use GIFs to break up the text. Evidence of too much thinking intimidates them, y’see.
Get with the clickbait times, grandpa
The best argument I have seen on the spread of upper-class genes by the death of the lower orders was the spread of Black Death. This happened in bursts that appear to correspond to social and cultural leaps. It also targeted the urban leeches.
It is not a coincidence.
The strangest regressive trend is the spread of STDs, which are not purely r-selected, since the species must reproduce in K-types too and spouses do cheat. In the era of premarital sex, they may have brought the infertility or birth-defect causing pathogens (by mutating development) into the marriage itself. Religion happens to prevent these problems e.g. no prostitution, keep celibate, it doesn’t answer them. The strongest candidate for a shift after Black Death is the probable damage caused by Syphilis. I noticed this but I haven’t found anyone to explicitly study it.
There is also the matter of atheist scientist superhero. It’s a myth of scientism. There is social pressure. Anonymously, plenty of scientists identify as non-atheist, something else. The atheism probability exists on a bell curve of one to two standard deviations; beyond this, belief in the supernatural and faith in bizarre, paranoid delusions also increases greatly.
That’s why they tend to go a bit ..loopy at the end. Especially the mathlete Olympiads. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Grothendieck
There’s a shocking lack of historical (OLD, dusty-ass) case studies (Freud did this! If Freud can do this!…) and historical or cultural asterisks on the (largely but hardly acknowledged personality) theories of Genius Famine, but the bare bones is correct.
Here’s where I go off on one.
“The emancipation of women only worsened this fall in IQ, argue Dutton and Charlton.”
There is no evidence and quite the opposite, as child IQ conforms highly to maternal IQ and there is growing evidence about the benefits of delaying motherhood, at least until after the teenage years, once the body has stabilized and ceased to grow. Men traditionally delayed fatherhood too but don’t expect parity in discussion because questioning your priors is so sissy apparently.
The suffrage was universal, as the most cursory reading of history will confirm. Women could actually vote in many places before it anyway. ‘Women’s suffrage’ is a feminist myth.
I’ve covered this and so have others, in extensive detail. Modern young woman is more conservative than the average young man and in Charlton’s own country, women now vote more conservatively than men. This is a mathematical trend you can take to the sperm bank. Calm down.
Fridge horror. Did nobody bother to look this all up? Where is the intellectual curiosity in intellectuals these days?
You don’t just get to proclaim an opinion because of your name or its letters, or else we’d take Lena Dunham’s advice on the biology of abortion. This is called an appeal to authority, emotional children.
It’s also another reason I go anon. I don’t want to get attacked IRL for stating basic truths any asshole could point out with five minutes and an internet connection. You are already in the place you need to be, I’m crudely drawing a map.
“They have far fewer children than less intelligent women, who are more likely to become pregnant young and by accident”
That is a failing of the Sexual Revolution, availability and attitudes to contraception, the abandonment of fathers and all those things combined that caused the monolithic rise of the modern welfare state. These are the true culprits of the issue, not voting. Most socialists are men, for example. Cthulhu swims Left. The voting is splintered far more by race than it ever could be by sex, and not one of them has the stones to finger ‘race’ as an issue. Try studying Voting Behaviour 101. See the recent election of Trump, where white women mostly voted for him and hardly any non-white. It’s a racial composition matter.
On a finer note, I’ve yet to see a modern civilization that isn’t white in root or base. I don’t see civilization as a bad thing either, it depends what you consider Peak, a question the NRx keep bitch-slapping over, especially in the Catholic blogs, that I feel Brucey would enjoy.
It is also strange to note that they deny intelligent women exist – until it’s tempting to criticize us for our responsible breeding habits.[But if we’re irresponsible, we’re also evil single mothers? Because all conception is intentional, right? And the father will definitely marry them, huh? And finding a spouse is so easy for anyone, m/f, not-dumb? And they have magical solutions for all these conflicts of the postmodern with the biological? Without actually going into the biology of it? ] Intelligent women breed far more often than intelligent men, if you look historically. They do not. There is no comparison of the sexes upon which to make these snide remarks. They fixate on one half of a whole problem. Blame Women! as your standby is literally sexist (and stupid, these are societal issues). As would be Blame Men! be sexist, and stupid for similar, anti-natal reasons. I proffer Blame R-types, since they are exactly the problem here. It doesn’t stroke the ego but it settles the mind.
Women discuss family problems far more than men, you just don’t look for us.
Family politics is literally our domain, the home.
You don’t get to pretend this is your area. It shows. Low EQ and SQ.
Men crowd around a table and discuss money, women discuss socially.
Maybe ask mumsnet how easy raising babies is today?
IF so, why no more stay-at-home dads and let her do the ‘hard work’?
The looming factor post-IR isn’t mentioned once. The world wars were incredibly dysgenic.
The healthy and young and brave died. The cowards and feeble and corrupt remained safe and plump and sexed at home, to later provide for their children (Parental Investment Theory) and give them an advantage over war widows (the reason for our welfare state). Draft limitations are a problem not one man has the courage to mention.
You spared the genetic detritus. Darwin is laughing at you.
Might I impose that this selective blindness is an arrogant bias, on part of a sex who wishes fully to blame the Other?
Where geniuses do breed, they do not mention the potential for dead-end mutations e.g. Goethe’s children.
I suppose they mustn’t know? That’s encouraging.
Not to mention the female germline is more stable. The male is prone to mutations, because it’s constantly regenerating. So any problems with homosexuality, for instance… yeah, that isn’t on women. Infertility in men is literally measured by their mutations. Little X-men swimmers. The superpower is schizophrenia.
The American Model of collegiate academia killed the Medieval University of Europe. Chief among the concerns is tenure. There is no sound reason for tenure, a form of academic welfare. Naturally, I expect too much for academics still in the Matrix-like system to admit this. Universities have too much money and hence waste their time. It’s affluenza on the level of an organisation. I do not expect that idea to be popular, but it is the truth. If Harvard couldn’t be left money in donations and wills, would it be so arrogant? Would the conceit spread to its founders? Why is the state teat extended to these people? They have become like the modern church, with the same problems e.g. tax exemption. The Bible says ya gotta pay taxes. The Vatican gets around this by being the State. Again, I don’t expect these problems to magically wax into focus given the bias of the writers, I have to mention it.
And someone’s going to act like it can afford to go unsaid.
“Academics contribute to this by getting funding, publishing frequently, and attending conferences.”
The social scene is poison. There, I said it. It’s populated by the midwits Vox Day complains about. They think they’re clever because they all mutually agree. Aren’t they lovely? Good in front of a camera, bad thinkers.
It is a little sexist to call the model of fault Head Girl when her role is often second to Head Boy and anyone British knows what a massive kiss-up the Head Boys are. Most of the leading academia they complain of is still generally male, so I wonder how they can square that circle…
The obedience of school is the Prussian model. It’s based on the male military complex. Before that, the rote form to teach monks. ..Were they girly too?
Boys’ schools do not magically produce geniuses on par with Tesla. Women and femininity are not the problem and assuredly not a weakness. This is a cheap, trivial argument. The problem is sub-par management, which, if you look at politics too, is decidedly male. Is the masculinity a problem? No. Gender has nothing to do with it. The people running the show are simply incompetent, due to generations of suck-ups getting promoted, largely thanks to credentialism.
I fear they may be a little intimidated by the findings that girls’ scores have exceeded boys’. Well, if we stopped grading on a curve, used a mixture of testing metrics (papers and exam because there are problems with both), in an anonymous exam condition it’s the same paper, either you know your stuff or you don’t. If we stopped grading on a curve, male grades would slip further down because they don’t care, they’re kept in education beyond vocation age (13-14). Girls are more receptive to any instruction, including education. Blame the white matter, learning is a social experience. Maybe in one-on-one tutor setups boys would do better, but good luck getting state funding for that!
Also, why do grades need to be an intersex competition? Curriculums have always been crap, you’re meant to go beyond it.
“This person will be excellent at playing the academic game and will make a great colleague. But they won’t innovate; won’t rock the boat.”
The problem there is a culture called collectivism, it is the opposite of Western individualism and dampens creativity. Snuffs it, kills it dead. It’s prevalent in Asia, not female-only spaces. You also cite a personality trait called agreeableness and another, conscientiousness. Personality types are not wrong per se, they have a place. Bad academics were hired there by other bad academics who slipped through the old net and now academia is bad. Where is the XX in this, specifically? There were all-good female colleges and still are, same with boys’. Don’t grasp for simplistic bullshit.
If you knew as many stories about Catholic boarding schools as I do, you’d know godly obedience is not the norm. Have you heard of St Trinians? If anything, the veil of religion is an excuse to misbehave, because you can just go out on Saturday and confess to a priest on Sunday and it’s all fine with The Big G by Monday.
Naturally, I don’t expect two men to know this. However, it’s their job to check.
Part of the rationale of mixed sex schools was to reduce rebellion caused by sexual frustration, by channeling it socially. It has been moderately successful, except class sizes present a new issue.
The above incompetent management issue applies to religious schools for boys as well, that also have rampant abuse (fagging), pedophilia and homosexual problems... don’t ask the ‘hard’ questions though, guys. Very manly.
“Once upon a time, they note, a ‘country vicar’ had lots of free time to research” –botany, no
You can’t build a quantum tunnel in the average English garden. Stop it. Citizen science is dead barring medical trial subjects.
Ironically, those botanical studies led to the theory of evolution. It is strange to read a man who clearly doesn’t believe in evolution, make references to biology that stands on it.
There were also scientific nuns. They do not get a look-in (ever) although they meet the criteria of being both heavily religious and scientific….
Moreover, the search for Adam and Eve led to fossil studies. It’s almost like you can’t suppress epistemic truth and this upsets idiots.
“The genius has no institution to nurture him and his potential will not be fulfilled.”
He has never needed one, he needs a shed.
Scholarly pursuits didn’t begin in the Middle Ages!
Let’s wrap this up a little.
The problems are thrice:
1. if everyone is equal, nobody is special and there’s no such thing as genius. We don’t need to worry about it or nurture it because we must deal with the dullards and dunces, who need us the most, say the low-IQ themselves, who want to feel superior to someone.
2. if geniuses can’t get credit and funding, they can’t do anything. Duh. Science has a price tag.
3. if geniuses somehow happen to succeed, society looks for any way to tear them down out of envy, from claims about mental illness (currently, autism) to political reasons or simply Tall Poppy Syndrome.
“But we have reached a point where our lives are so secure, and where death is so remote, that we no longer believe that our lives, or our society, has eternal significance.”
All Cultures Are Equal lies. PC censorship, yes, we know about.
Punishment of in-group preference.
I mean, these concepts aren’t hard to research.
Most exist on wikipedia, for beginners.
“Western society is selfish; the human race is damaging the Earth.”
Those are two separate points. Europe is the only continent below replacement level.
We are the only sustainable continent. No conversation on sustainability can be had until we address population. The Left thinks it owns the environment as a topic, but they’re really retaining ground so we cannot discuss this in the mainstream, public spheres (denying a platform?)…
“In addition, our high level of comfort means that the problems with which a genius may now grapple are either too theoretical to care about or too long-term to think about now.” Lie.
“He will cause offence and question the dogmas which give us the comfort of certainty all for the sake of a problem so distant that most of us can postpone thinking about it.” Lie. I’m sick of these sweeping statements that pretend to be scientific. You get some jumped-up upper-middle class white prick who thinks he’s the next Hitchens because he ‘cares’ about XYZ topic (right-wing virtue signalling). Hitchens read books before mouthing off. For many years. Go back to reddit if you want delusions of grandeur.
“In this context, of life not being serious, we would expect the genius to be pilloried.”
How is life less serious now for anyone paying attention? Literally how? Where is my surfboard to coast?
It’s more serious and seriously depressing than ever! Sweeping statements! Geniuses are not insulted, they are denied. They are disqualified so as to be ignored! The findings may as well not have happened!
The cultural message is Noblesse Oblige is dead. We don’t need you, we haz iPhones. Unmentioned goes the fact that most illustrious scientists were members of the aristocracy. I guess Neoreaction slices a little too close to the nerves!
Academia just replicates the environment of aristocracy – badly.
Look up the story of ‘snob’.
“And geniuses are more sensitive than most.”
In themselves, yes. Externally? Have you read the stories about Newton? He was a Grade A pillock socially, a total misanthrope who neither cared about nor sought approval. It was awesome.
He was worse than House. #herogoals
But I suppose the author wants to self-identify (Hello, Millennial) with Illustrious Status Group by the convenient emotions of existence. Why? If what you’ve written in that very paragraph is true, you’d be signalling anything you could that you were anything BUT a genius, if they’re so openly reviled!
Common sense, there is not.
“Life will become harsher and simpler and, eventually, more religious.”
This is already happening with economics and I linked to Jaymans exemplary coverage of liberal fertility being a feature, not a bug.
They tend to assume all religion is good for science though, when clearly it’s just the one (Protestantism) that allows it.
Not one big Mormon scientist, is there? Catholicism literally killed people for doing maths during the Renaissance. We could be living on other planets and piloting flying cars by now if the Pope weren’t a thing (and nothing in scripture says we need one). The Bible actually says to beware of false prophets who try to replace scripture and that God wants his followers to be happy and prosperous. That would be an easier sell, huh? Human rights aren’t really negotiable if you want someone’s labour so persuasion is the trick.
“At the moment, it seems that there’s nothing we can do to stop this short of a horrendous reversion to pre-Industrial levels of child mortality.”
We won’t stop magically knowing how child-rearing has evolved, this kind of knowledge isn’t academic. It’s preserved in the matrilineal line. This is obvious.
No blackpills unless they’re real.
“But if we could better nurture genius then somebody might come up with a solution before it is too late.”
Almost sounds like the entire point of eugenics. And do you want historical reversion or progress? Biblical living standards or First World ones? Decide. Pick one. Also, way to pass the fucking buck. You want it? You do it, prick.
These people say they’re So Smart (complete with IQ claims) …but not smart enough to get off their arse and actually do something.
Sure thing, kid. And they call us damsels.
Your armchair philosophy is gonna Save Da World.
Adults in the room, inwardly:
Why should a Feynman work for you?… There is no sane answer to this question. Rand’s stake of a point in the heart of greedy vampire societies that don’t appreciate the people who make it so good. Marx said who do you work for? Rand says WHY.
God-damn the entitlement of normies to the hard-earned property of the intellectual. Fruits of one’s labour, a human right. Read your philosophy, child. Sowing, reaping…
It is evil. Bible says a man who will not work, should not eat.
Aaron Clarey has actually covered this, there is no greed, there is only theft. It’s well-known in economics that anything less than a choice is force. That’s left-wing, isn’t it? All working [no leisure, no robots] … according to his abilities…[like you can work above them?] in a kind of commune [rejects family]… that contains everyone [supranationalism, no borders, open borders]… for universalism, a value. [we call this multiculturalism, still]
A little on the theft and self-ownership angle. This isn’t egalitarianism in the modern variation that doesn’t work, it’s from humanism, originally.
At most, they the producer get to choose to limit it to potential consumers as they see fit – exclusive to themselves, genetic kin…not everyone. This is Polyanna stupidity, Bill Gates has kept most of his fortune and he’s meant to be the nice one. As stated above, taking things from geniuses is part of the Problem TM. No regulation, no oversight, no Nanny State. Control is part of the ownership conditions. I don’t get to decide to sell your house. They got to that point, you didn’t – they earned the right to tell you to fuck off and build your own spaceship.
Pearls of wisdom are not for the herd of swine. Nope.
“The genius will combine this very narrow intelligence with very narrow interests.”
Hahahahahaha, you’ve never met one, have you?
They take time to decide on topics and between those, they rove. See von Neumann.
Don’t believe the Hollywood trope of a man in slacks sitting in front of a blackboard screaming WHYYYYYY? at the air (or God?) and throwing balled-up pieces of paper at his coworkers who JUST. DON’T. UNDERSTAND. Like that’s *their* problem. The tortured genius is trite and over-used as a metaphor for teenage angst.
“He’ll also be socially awkward and eccentric.”
Define this. Everyone is a weirdo once you get to know them for a few years.
Do you mean autism?
Rain Man wasn’t autistic. Stop. Being. Stupid. Question. Your. Assumptions.
Priors. Whatever fancy fucking name you want. If it makes you feel clever, delta/gamma-tier.
I proceed, insulting nobody in particular.
“They tend to be useless at everyday things” I knew. I just kneeeew the digs would come in eventually. Point three.
Do you mean all of these people are savants?
And you don’t technically need to be autistic to have savant or splinter skills.
Do they look this up?
INTELLIGENCE IS NOT A DISEASE. DO NOT PATHOLOGISE IT.
WHY AM I YELLING.
BECAUSE IT’S THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT IN THIS CRITIQUE AND I LIKE YELLING, IT’S 5AM HERE.
If you actually want a society led by people better than you (some kind of aristocracy cmon), to care and take care of you, then don’t play into the enemy’s mind games.
“they are very fragile people and they are not usually interested in money”
Are they children? Can they not develop? Well, if you’re basing that last on the tenured….
“They need long-term security so that they do not have to worry about ordinary things, which they not interested in and are no good at.”
I feel basing this on mathematical niche SWPL men of the 20th century America is a method flaw.
Einstein is not the prototypic genius. Read more.
He became famous as a meme. The tongue meme. You know the one.
“If we can make these changes, insist Dutton and Charlton, then in spite of declining intelligence, it is possible that a genius may be produced who can develop a solution to this problem”
And I must scream.
Define the problem.
Use your four operational brain cells.
IF no geniuses = problem, how can we sprout one like a magic beanstalk of N-IQ?
IF intelligence is declining, surely plug the leak in the boat before you begin to bail?
IF there are geniuses, give them the media platform. Give them power. The media platform is the biggest problem because it encourages the stupid. Stop the comedies and MTV reality shit, even the ones you like you must give up America. It’s like taking a dummy from a baby, for much the same reasons.
IF academia is the problem, it isn’t geniuses then, is it? It’s the Cultural Marxist structure that is hostile to anyone that tells the truth.
IF someone had a solution, none of you would listen. That’s your own point, by the way!
Being lectured about degeneracy from a resident of New York.
The irony is five miles deep into Chomsky’s rectal cavity.
I quit this topic, for like… five months, until I’ve forgotten why I hate it again.
I already know the default reaction to this post, for example.
How shitposty do I have to be for you to listen to me? This is proof of what I mean, you complain everything spoonfeeds but then throw the rattle when someone dares break it down because it wasn’t how you’d do it. That’s the purpose of teaching, dumbass. You can’t yet. It wouldn’t work.
It isn’t personal, it’s societal. Not everything is about you.
Get new rhetorical strikes, please. Buy some. Get a GF pillow and a sense of humour too.
Next there’ll be a series of E-books on How to Save Western Civ and step one is grab the testes’ cream…
None of this will be glib, for we are truly the damned. How can you fix people who brag about being broken? How can you save what you can’t find? How can you cooperate with people who turn everything into a WWF match?
Globalization will die with multiculturalism. Hint: they’re the same thing, that’s why this ploy could never, ever work, Dick.
Those people don’t listen, they follow. That’s all they do. They’re Bernie lite.
Nobody plays Follow the Leader better than shitlibs.
Remember, they are left wing. Although to claim anti-fascism is a leftist myth, looking to history. Lenin, Stalin, Mao… maybe Putin.
He quotes Ayn Rand (I know, I know).
And what a weaksauce appeal to authority. Trite AF.
“Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values, and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.”
This predates the field of genetics, behavioural genetics, forensic anthropology, criminology and widespread acultural IQ testing.
Was Einstein’s brain normal? Not really. You can’t use Mac OS on an MS Windows PC properly and neither can you expect the performance range of one higher successful group e.g. Jews like Rand, from the platform of people who can barely stop murdering their seed crop (see Africa, and the tragic, huge failure of the Millennium Villages.)
Yes, that’s a shitlib site. I can stab them with their own shanks.
Even introversion/extraversion is neurological and thereby, inherited. Look up the entire region of twin studies to reveal how laughably wrong these claims are. Is mental illness the person’s fault, then, or something you can inherit? Really pin them down on the problematic consequences of making everyone 100% responsible for their biology, when none of us chose to be born.
“by physical factors beyond his control” – biology?
Rand wasn’t a scientist. Nobody ever asked Curie. Curie FTW.
Even the most diehard Tabula Rasa fan (clinging onto a philosophy to the point of insanity) would admit culture predates our birth and gives a heavy influence so hypothetically, still a bust. Libertarianism seeks to duplicate cultures like a socioeconomic equivalent of Copy and Paste – and that’s why it will always be destined to fail.
People are not the same. We have DNA tests, MRI scans and performance metrics. You don’t see many white men winning the 100m sprint.
At this point they look retarded, painfully slow on the uptake, at least half a century out of date, but I guess autism is all about refusing to concede overt stupidity. Pity the rest of us can see. Libertarianism is the doctrine where you must assume as your prior a belief, nay, a faith, that everyone in the world is the same intelligence level of a 120IQ white man with Aspergers living in a capital city and desperate for money to buy female attention.
If some people are less able than they are, they might need to feel guilty for once in their spoiled suburban childhood lives. They might pause to think – wait, maybe I didn’t earn all of this? ‘Check your privilege’ applies to these people because they use a nonsense condition as an excuse to be a complete, unrepentant arsehole. The male SJW’s natural home. But libertarianism has never been tried! – because there aren’t enough autistic MENSA card holders in the world. In most parts of it, they’d be murdered within five minutes for citing their paper IQ in an argument.
Libertarians want to have as much money as Republicans but never to feel guilty about it. Because child labour is so much better morally, all the way in China than ignoring minimum wages in America.
“This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge”
like language? or some little thing called epigenetics, where your ancestors can dictate your own risk of heart disease? why would medicine need that information? that’s just silly
“which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science.”
no such thing, it is always pending further evidence
anti-science liars like to spread that myth though
Science isn’t a damsel with ‘honour’ to protect, you can discuss anything. ANY-THING. That is literally the whole point. No subject is EVER off the table. The method can ALWAYS be applied. NO exceptions, Mr Pope!
The kind of person to un-ironically quote this.
You can see where the autistic arrogance of atheistkult feeds in. I’m pretty sure 85% of ‘high-functioning’ aka not real autism is hubris.
He claims it’s collectivism, because Rand does. Nationalism is not collectivism, globalism is.
Libertarianism is globalism. Nationalism is capitalist, competitive. Libertarianism tells the First World it has earned its position over the Third because the truth might make them feel bad about the slave labour.
“appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.”
aka Literally what Darwin said in Origin of the Species. He opens by discussing animal breeding.
Different breeds of animal are different races within the same species.
Biology applies to all species, men are not exempt from evolution.
Richards’ essay on Hitler calls into question the entire enterprise of stigmatizing Darwin’s theory of evolution with the term “Social Darwinism”. It’s not as if evolutionary theory has never been used to justify unethical practices. Any idea can be used for good or bad purposes. What’s wrong is the claim that evolutionary theory is somehow especially prone to misuse or was misused in specific cases such as Nazi war policy. We owe a debt of gratitude to careful scholars such as Robert J. Richards for setting the record straight.
Immediately, one of the biggest critiques of HBD and associated information, based on Godwin’s Law, is rendered null.