+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 110

Thread: In the genes?

  1. #51

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zavon View Post
    Wouldn't it be easier just to sterilize blacks?
    Yes; but it's less ethical, and inhumane. Blacks have just as much right to exist as whites. Not *more*. We should offer no support and they can sink or swim on their own. Welfare enables dysgenic breeding by the least fit. I've little doubt black IQ's in the US would be higher if we'd not created one. Having one, the best option would be compulsory sterilization for welfare receipt. However, I think we'd need an authoritarian government to accomplish that.

    ------------------------------------------

    I have far less faith than Pyrrhus that a democratic society could embrace eugenics or even that eugenics through gene editing will be possible in the near future. If it were this would involve editing embryos pre-implantation with viruses - ruling out natural sex as a form of procreation. I could see China and the ultra-rich embracing this on a limited scale and creating some type of Übermensch, but I can't see it being the sort of thing that would affect the day to day life of a prole in any country (democratic or not).
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,392

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marou View Post
    Yes, but less ethical and inhumane. Blacks have just as much right to exist as whites. Not *more*. We should offer no support and they can sink or swim on their own. Welfare enables dysgenic breeding by the least fit. I've little doubt black IQ's in the US would be higher if we'd not created one. Having one, the best option would be compulsory sterilization for welfare receipt. However, I think we'd need an authoritarian government to accomplish that.

    ------------------------------------------

    I have far less faith than Pyrrhus that a democratic society could embrace eugenics or even that eugenics through gene editing will be possible in the near future. If it were this would involve editing embryos pre-implantation with viruses - ruling out natural sex as a form of procreation. I could see China and the ultra-rich embracing this on a limited scale and creating some type of Übermensch, but I can't see it being the sort of thing that would affect the day to day life of a prole in any country (democratic or not).
    I wasn't being serious.

    I think genetic modification might be the very thing to save us (not eugenics). It won't work if you tell people who they have to marry, but if you market genetic modification like an apple product it will fucking take hold-- mark my words. Having a new baby? Make it the new inigger 5S, it can run like Usain Bolt and do calculus like Niel De Grass Tyson.
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

  3. #53

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zavon View Post
    I wasn't being serious.

    I think genetic modification might be the very thing to save us (not eugenics). It won't work if you tell people who they have to marry, but if you market genetic modification like an apple product it will fucking take hold-- mark my words. Having a new baby? Make it the new inigger 5S, it can run like Usain Bolt and do calculus like Niel De Grass Tyson.
    I laughed, but we're not even a little bit close to being able to make significant genetic changes to intact organisms, so that's way sci-fi. 100+ years if we don't fall apart before then. Also, who knows how much of this shit is epigenic - we certainly don't.
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,392

    Default Re: In the genes?

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nati...?event=event25

    I think it can happen sooner than we think. Anyone read the Red Rising books? Really dark version of Gattica (basically), with a lot of murder and space marines.
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

  5. #55

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zavon View Post
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nati...?event=event25

    I think it can happen sooner than we think. Anyone read the Red Rising books? Really dark version of Gattica (basically), with a lot of murder and space marines.
    No, but apparently I should. Who doesn't love murder and space marines?

    Sure, I know some limited (pre-implantation embryo) modifications will be and are currently possible. However, like I said, I don't think average people will do anything like that on a wide enough scale to have an appreciable impact - because it would require a bunch of money + planned medically induced pregnancies vs normal sex. Instead I think mass consumer genetic modification won't be around until we can modify an intact organisms DNA and force the body to rebuild itself per it's new instruction set. So, far future shit; by the time we can do that diseases and such will long be a thing of the past.
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Saratoga, NY
    Posts
    912

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marou View Post
    Yes; but it's less ethical, and inhumane. Blacks have just as much right to exist as whites. Not *more*. We should offer no support and they can sink or swim on their own. Welfare enables dysgenic breeding by the least fit. I've little doubt black IQ's in the US would be higher if we'd not created one. Having one, the best option would be compulsory sterilization for welfare receipt. However, I think we'd need an authoritarian government to accomplish that.

    ------------------------------------------

    I have far less faith than Pyrrhus that a democratic society could embrace eugenics or even that eugenics through gene editing will be possible in the near future. If it were this would involve editing embryos pre-implantation with viruses - ruling out natural sex as a form of procreation. I could see China and the ultra-rich embracing this on a limited scale and creating some type of Übermensch, but I can't see it being the sort of thing that would affect the day to day life of a prole in any country (democratic or not).
    Have no fear, I have no real faith that such a thing would happen with regularity in that century remark, but I can see it being a big thing within the next century if we don't revert somehow in our scientific endeavors. As you said in another comment we could royally fuck up our entire species with some editing that we don't know the consequences to. I do know that there has been some talk of successful artificial wombs/uterus in animals (goats I believe) but not for a full termed fetus.

    I also don't believe such a technology would make itself useful to a Democratic society as part of the 'lie' to keep it running is that 'everyone's vote matters'. In such an engineered society there would definitely be slave/worker classes that don't get to make decisions.

    On the other half of the equation we work with more than bio-engineering and relationally it is quite slow compared to regular engineering and computing. I see them growing together over the next century (again, if we don't fuck it all up) towards a mix of mechanical/electrical engineering and bio-engineering to further the human condition. Augmented Reality and increasing memory recall/storage capacity through external means would be the first steps towards progressing in my opinion. If people could have an encyclopedia on hand at all times (at no effort, google/research/eliminating bad info all require some form of effort) it would change the shape of society drastically.

    But now I'm just mentally masturbating.
    Last edited by Pyrrhus; 08-23-2017 at 02:29 PM.

  7. #57

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrrhus View Post
    If people could have an encyclopedia on hand at all times (at no effort, google/research/eliminating bad info all require some form of effort) it would change the shape of society drastically.

    But now I'm just mentally masturbating.
    I think you just described a smartphone.
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,392

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marou View Post
    I think you just described a smartphone.
    he need the new inigger
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Saratoga, NY
    Posts
    912

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marou View Post
    I think you just described a smartphone.
    Yes and no.

    We've derailed enough for my fantasy shenanigans.

  10. #60

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marou View Post
    We would be classified into subspecies if it wasn't politically incorrect.
    Almost certainly. I noted this from scratch since I was a child when I was in college level Biology courses freshman year of highschool and was warned to shut up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marou View Post
    IMG
    What a frustrating image. The creator took their strong arguments and used them to give credibility to the big weak one in the middle. The structure, the unprompted extra supportive data... the mind behind this reads like a textbook describing someone being dishonest in an interview. I see your trans racial adoption study is in there, with it's whole 12 black kids was it? I wonder what I'd find if I googled the others. A project for next time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marou View Post
    Also, out of africa theory is dead/dying. First humans emerged in the eastern Mediterranean and not East Africa
    Yeah, but south Americans were last to find home and what good did it do them? Point stands. We have a common ancestor = environmental factors already caused the racial differences so it's pretty empty trying to argue they can't. You're purely talking about time vs environment, but even time vs environment is just... time spent... in other environments... You only have a leg to stand on because you had huge amounts of time, but again... your own IQ map shows that isn't required and it doesn't sway you or Zavon so why bother with anything more complicated?
    The important take-away here is that you racists can breathe a sigh of relief that you're not some lowercase "african".

    Quote Originally Posted by Zavon View Post
    Yeah, iirc it's been discovered that whites and asians have neanderthal DNA as well-- something that blacks do not have, further removing us as a species.
    I had totally forgotten about this. This is far more interesting to me than M's cherry picked IQ correlations within the greater context that proves his conclusions wrong, or fancy math rewording the correlation. Neanderthal DNA is especially interesting because of the knee jerk reaction that happened in response, where the DNA had to be labeled a disadvantage, and had to be labeled as such very quickly. This stinks of SJW libtardation and interference. If it was such a disadvantage we wouldn't still be here and it wouldn't be everywhere.




    Quote Originally Posted by Zavon View Post
    *resisted*
    Last edited by VKhaun; 08-23-2017 at 05:10 PM.
    Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,392

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by VKhaun View Post
    Almost certainly. I noted this from scratch since I was a child when I was in college level Biology courses freshman year of highschool and was warned to shut up.


    What a frustrating image. The creator took their strong arguments and used them to give credibility to the big weak one in the middle. The structure, the unprompted extra supportive data... the mind behind this reads like a textbook describing someone being dishonest in an interview. I see your trans racial adoption study is in there, with it's whole 12 black kids was it? I wonder what I'd find if I googled the others. A project for next time.


    Yeah, but south Americans were last to find home and what good did it do them? Point stands. We have a common ancestor = environmental factors already caused the racial differences so it's pretty empty trying to argue they can't. You're purely talking about time vs environment, but even time vs environment is just... time spent... in other environments... You only have a leg to stand on because you had huge amounts of time, but again... your own IQ map shows that isn't required and it doesn't sway you or Zavon so why bother with anything more complicated?
    The important take-away here is that you racists can breathe a sigh of relief that you're not some lowercase "african".


    I had totally forgotten about this. This is far more interesting to me than M's cherry picked IQ correlations within the greater context that proves his conclusions wrong, or fancy math rewording the correlation. Neanderthal DNA is especially interesting because of the knee jerk reaction that happened in response, where the DNA had to be labeled a disadvantage, and had to be labeled as such very quickly. This stinks of SJW libtardation and interference. If it was such a disadvantage we wouldn't still be here and it wouldn't be everywhere.





    *resisted*
    I mean you're not wrong. I find it funny that people get up in arms over that shit one way or the other. I mean you call me a racist, but when I found out I was part African the other day from a genetic test, I just went "meh". Same thing is true for Neanderthals. I guess when it comes down to it, I don't really make it a point of pride or shame what my DNA is. I discuss these kinds of issues clinically and with disregard for damage, but I'd almost certainly never call a black person a nigger irl. Nor would I advocate concentration camps or some stupid shit like that. In other words, crime stats and shit like this is just my baseball talk at the water cooler.
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

  12. #62

    Default Re: In the genes?

    I love how I throw up all sorts of facts, and then you come back with "that's just like your opinion man, das racis". Every argument you've tried to raise is quashed in that info-graphic, including specific genetic markers for intelligence missing in Africans.

    The only person here who thinks Africans are "inferior" is you, because you're so locked into our western lifestyle being the ideal human lifestyle. Having low IQ does make a human less valuable to modern western society/culture. However, that doesn't make them inferior humans, just a different type of human. The vast majority of Africans don't belong in modern societies and cultures. It doesn't make them happy; it makes them violent, bewildered, and depressed. Trying to stick a brown nig into a white nog is what causes all the problems.

    You never really struck me as religious, but this is most certainly a religious position you hold. I have immediate family members that are black and this shit was easier for me than it is for you.
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  13. #63

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marou View Post
    I love how I throw up all sorts of facts, and then you come back with "that's just like your opinion man, das racis". Every argument you've tried to raise is quashed in that info-graphic, including specific genetic markers for intelligence missing in Africans.

    The only person here who thinks Africans are "inferior" is you, because you're so locked into our western lifestyle being the ideal human lifestyle. Having low IQ does make a human less valuable to modern western society/culture. However, that doesn't make them inferior humans, just a different type of human. The vast majority of Africans don't belong in modern societies and cultures. It doesn't make them happy; it makes them violent, bewildered, and depressed. Trying to stick a brown nig into a white nog is what causes all the problems.

    You never really struck me as religious, but this is most certainly a religious position you hold. I have immediate family members that are black and this shit was easier for me than it is for you.
    You're projecting. I have 0 investment in the topic and no need for it.

    You're invested in your whiteness being superior, or at least justifying it being separate.

    Your statistics conflict with each other in ways you would never accept anywhere else.
    Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,192

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marou View Post
    I love how I throw up all sorts of facts, and then you come back with "that's just like your opinion man, das racis". Every argument you've tried to raise is quashed in that info-graphic, including specific genetic markers for intelligence missing in Africans.

    The only person here who thinks Africans are "inferior" is you, because you're so locked into our western lifestyle being the ideal human lifestyle. Having low IQ does make a human less valuable to modern western society/culture. However, that doesn't make them inferior humans, just a different type of human. The vast majority of Africans don't belong in modern societies and cultures. It doesn't make them happy; it makes them violent, bewildered, and depressed. Trying to stick a brown nig into a white nog is what causes all the problems.

    You never really struck me as religious, but this is most certainly a religious position you hold. I have immediate family members that are black and this shit was easier for me than it is for you.
    That's what I take from it but it's beating a dead horse because we've been this route before. It seems more like an ideology for him, not that it doesn't have its altruistic merits but it's not based in fact.
    "Nah man, a Paladin has to play fair and by the rules. Do you really see Silly not attacking a weakened opponent? Or rather, not exploiting a weakness to take an enemy down? He'd totally do that. It's the law of the jungle with Silly, even if he does have faith. I think he's principled, just not merciful." - Zavon

  15. #65

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sillywilly View Post
    That's what I take from it but it's beating a dead horse because we've been this route before. It seems more like an ideology for him, not that it doesn't have its altruistic merits but it's not based in fact.
    It's amazing to me that I can totally lock down Marou with the same contradiction three times in three threads, he can ignore it for a page or two, then restate his original argument and both of you will follow him and claim I'm the thick one.

    This is what belief-confirmation has done to our society. You all know it because you call it out when the left does it, pretending climate model data from twenty years ago is rock solid, or that somehow genetics can't pass a magical barrier to affect the brain. It's like being in a room full of insane people telling me not to take my meds so I can see the aliens.
    Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

  16. #66

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by VKhaun View Post
    It's amazing to me that I can totally lock down Marou with the same contradiction three times in three threads, he can ignore it for a page or two, then restate his original argument and both of you will follow him and claim I'm the thick one.

    This is what belief-confirmation has done to our society. You all know it because you call it out when the left does it, pretending climate model data from twenty years ago is rock solid, or that somehow genetics can't pass a magical barrier to affect the brain. It's like being in a room full of insane people telling me not to take my meds so I can see the aliens.
    You're delusional, but don't take my word for it. When your version of reality is different than everyone else's...
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,392

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by VKhaun View Post
    It's amazing to me that I can totally lock down Marou with the same contradiction three times in three threads, he can ignore it for a page or two, then restate his original argument and both of you will follow him and claim I'm the thick one.

    This is what belief-confirmation has done to our society. You all know it because you call it out when the left does it, pretending climate model data from twenty years ago is rock solid, or that somehow genetics can't pass a magical barrier to affect the brain. It's like being in a room full of insane people telling me not to take my meds so I can see the aliens.
    What do you mean genetics can't pass a magical barrier to affect the brain?

    What contradiction have you locked him down with?

    Explain this please.
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

  18. #68

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marou View Post
    You're delusional, but don't take my word for it. When your version of reality is different than everyone else's...
    You're projecting.

    Your own data disagrees with itself. If your conclusions based on heritability were accurate, we could not have the difference we see between African and American blacks. You know you can't logically claim one standard within America and then apply a totally different one to Africa for your argument that genetics are by far the largest factor, but you do so repeatedly and blatantly because it's the only way you can continue to believe what you want.

    And when I say it's the only way YOU can continue I do mean specifically YOU. For over two years I've been expecting you to just question the data integrity. The IQ studies in Africa are shit. All you had to do to reassert a genetics argument on a level playing field would be to assume blacks have a SLIGHTLY higher IQ than described on the map. It's not unreasonable and it brings your whole argument into line. But you're so invested in anti-black statistics anywhere you can get them that it would be like eating your own children. Much easier to leave and post anti-black memes and anecdotes for a page or two, then come back with ad hominem.

    All for what? So you can choose not to help them based on their skin color? Choose not to let them into the country based on skin color? Oh wait... skin color doesn't work either... it's wasteful and inaccurate compared to an IQ barrier using a standardized test, but you also ran from that argument to post LOL BLAK PPL DUMB memes and came back with ad hominem so I guess there's no point going there again.
    Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

  19. #69

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by VKhaun View Post
    You're projecting.

    Your own data disagrees with itself. If your conclusions based on heritability were accurate, we could not have the difference we see between African and American blacks. You know you can't logically claim one standard within America and then apply a totally different one to Africa for your argument that genetics are by far the largest factor, but you do so repeatedly and blatantly because it's the only way you can continue to believe what you want.

    And when I say it's the only way YOU can continue I do mean specifically YOU. For over two years I've been expecting you to just question the data integrity. The IQ studies in Africa are shit. All you had to do to reassert a genetics argument on a level playing field would be to assume blacks have a SLIGHTLY higher IQ than described on the map. It's not unreasonable and it brings your whole argument into line. But you're so invested in anti-black statistics anywhere you can get them that it would be like eating your own children. Much easier to leave and post anti-black memes and anecdotes for a page or two, then come back with ad hominem.

    All for what? So you can choose not to help them based on their skin color? Choose not to let them into the country based on skin color? Oh wait... skin color doesn't work either... it's wasteful and inaccurate compared to an IQ barrier using a standardized test, but you also ran from that argument to post LOL BLAK PPL DUMB memes and came back with ad hominem so I guess there's no point going there again.




    I could break down literally everything you've said with copy/paste comments from other threads and this one. You just ignore things you don't like and will still think you've won some intellectual war. So, have a meme.
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,392

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by VKhaun View Post
    You're projecting.

    Your own data disagrees with itself. If your conclusions based on heritability were accurate, we could not have the difference we see between African and American blacks. You know you can't logically claim one standard within America and then apply a totally different one to Africa for your argument that genetics are by far the largest factor, but you do so repeatedly and blatantly because it's the only way you can continue to believe what you want.

    And when I say it's the only way YOU can continue I do mean specifically YOU. For over two years I've been expecting you to just question the data integrity. The IQ studies in Africa are shit. All you had to do to reassert a genetics argument on a level playing field would be to assume blacks have a SLIGHTLY higher IQ than described on the map. It's not unreasonable and it brings your whole argument into line. But you're so invested in anti-black statistics anywhere you can get them that it would be like eating your own children. Much easier to leave and post anti-black memes and anecdotes for a page or two, then come back with ad hominem.
    You do know that the average African American is about 1/4 White European right? https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2...f-youre-white/

    You do know that that isn't *his* data, but data from published academic journals right? People have been trying to excuse and look for alternative explanations for Black IQ differences for decades, unsuccessfully. Every time, when you control for a factor it still ends up the same. I know it's uncomfortable, but writing off any data that you don't like as biased or cherry picking, doesn't serve you well man.

    All for what? So you can choose not to help them based on their skin color? Choose not to let them into the country based on skin color? Oh wait... skin color doesn't work either... it's wasteful and inaccurate compared to an IQ barrier using a standardized test, but you also ran from that argument to post LOL BLAK PPL DUMB memes and came back with ad hominem so I guess there's no point going there again.
    I 100% agree that you can't judge a person by their skin color. I'm more than ok with a black African immigrant with a high IQ and skill set coming here, as long as they aren't muslim LOL. I don't think anyone here has argued that? I think mostly everyone here is just sort of amazed that you won't concede that race has an impact on IQ.

    Edit: VK you might like this link, it's a long semi-drawn out look at what we've been discussing, and I think its fair: http://rense.com/general79/dut.htm
    Last edited by Zavon; 08-23-2017 at 08:08 PM.
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,192

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zavon View Post
    You do know that the average African American is about 1/4 White European right? https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2...f-youre-white/

    You do know that that isn't *his* data, but data from published academic journals right? People have been trying to excuse and look for alternative explanations for Black IQ differences for decades, unsuccessfully. Every time, when you control for a factor it still ends up the same. I know it's uncomfortable, but writing off any data that you don't like as biased or cherry picking, doesn't serve you well man.



    I 100% agree that you can't judge a person by their skin color. I'm more than ok with a black African immigrant with a high IQ and skill set coming here, as long as they aren't muslim LOL. I don't think anyone here has argued that? I think mostly everyone here is just sort of amazed that you won't concede that race has an impact on IQ.

    Edit: VK you might like this link, it's a long semi-drawn out look at what we've been discussing, and I think its fair: http://rense.com/general79/dut.htm
    That is what I was going to point out. That blacks in America are affected by way more variables than simply nutrition.
    "Nah man, a Paladin has to play fair and by the rules. Do you really see Silly not attacking a weakened opponent? Or rather, not exploiting a weakness to take an enemy down? He'd totally do that. It's the law of the jungle with Silly, even if he does have faith. I think he's principled, just not merciful." - Zavon

  22. #72

    Default Re: In the genes?

    maybe r/K selection has something to do with it
    No it doesn't.

    http://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/06/24/rk-selection-theory-a-response-to-rushton

    http://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/06/25/e-o-wilson-on-rushtons-rk-theory-and-more-on-endemic-disease/

    http://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017...-conservative/

    http://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017...truth-justice/

    Whites and Asians being K selected and far more nurturing, compared to being r selected and popping out as many children as you can, seeing who survives.
    Mongoloids would be r-selected since cold weather is an agent of r-selection while Africans would be K-selected since endemic disease is an agent of K-selection. Rushton completely mixed the two strategies up in application to the races of Man. r/K selection theory does not apply to human races because human races are not local populations.
    Last edited by RaceRealist; 08-24-2017 at 10:30 PM.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,392

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by RaceRealist View Post
    No it doesn't.

    http://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/06/24/rk-selection-theory-a-response-to-rushton

    http://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/06/25/e-o-wilson-on-rushtons-rk-theory-and-more-on-endemic-disease/

    http://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017...-conservative/

    http://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017...truth-justice/



    Mongoloids would be r-selected since cold weather is an agent of r-selection while Africans would be K-selected since endemic disease is an agent of K-selection. Rushton completely mixed the two strategies up in application to the races of Man. r/K selection theory does not apply to human races because human races are not local populations.
    Are you the author of those articles that you've linked?
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

  24. #74

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Sillywilly,

    Well I think what he means is that since pretty much all of the data points to genetics being the factor in IQ that if you're going to claim nutrition is the culprit you're going to need to show that the particular races IQ rises with nutrition. Simply showing that nutrition is different between the races doesn't prove that nutrition is the cause for a lower IQ. A lower average IQ would affect many factors within a race, including the ability to procure resources. So lower nutrition does not automatically = lower IQ. If you show that black children from homes with improved nutrition have higher IQs then you're on to something. Or if you can show that black kids adopted into white homes have higher IQs then you might have a connection between nutrition and nurture.


    People deny that bad nutrition has a deleterious impact on IQ? This isn't up for debate.

    Infectious disease remains the most powerful predictor of average national IQ when temperature, distance from Africa, gross domestic product per capita and several measures of education are controlled for. These findings suggest that the Flynn effect may be caused in part by the decrease in the intensity of infectious diseases as nations develop.


    http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/06/29/rspb.2010.0973.full

    Support is provided for the finding that a national index of parasite burden and national IQ are strongly linked and temperature also features strongly in the models. However, we tentatively recommend a physiological – via impacts on host–parasite interactions – rather than evolutionary explanation for the effect of temperature.


    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAxNi9qLmludGVsbC4yMDExLjA1LjAwMQ==/10.1016%40j.intell.2011.05.001.pdf

    Collectively, these findings suggest that improvements in infant health help explain secular increases in cognitive test scores, that better cognition may link early life health to adulthood earnings, and that human capital investments through childhood and young adulthood respond sensitively to market returns to early life endowment shocks.


    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1679164

    In this study, we tested the parasite-stress hypothesis for the distribution of intelligence among the USA states: the hypothesis proposes that intelligence emerges from a developmental trade-off between maximizing brain vs. immune function. From this we predicted that among the USA states where infectious disease stress was high, average intelligence would be low and where infectious disease stress was low, average intelligence would be high. As predicted, we found that the correlation between average state IQ and infectious disease stress was − 0.67 (p < 0.0001) across the 50 states. Furthermore, when controlling the effects of wealth and educational variation among states, infectious disease stress was the best predictor of average state IQ.
    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAxNi9qLmludGVsbC4yMDExLjAyLjAwOA==/10.1016%40j.intell.2011.02.008.pdf

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...n-some-places/
    Last edited by RaceRealist; 08-24-2017 at 10:46 PM.

  25. #75

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Zavon,

    Are you the author of those articles that you've linked?


    Yes.




Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts