+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 110

Thread: In the genes?

  1. #76
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,393

    Default Re: In the genes?

    "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."

  2. #77

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Zavon,

    Quote Originally Posted by Zavon View Post
    Wow! That is an interesting theory! Infectious diseases eh? I haven't heard of that before.
    That's part of it. I'm averse to temperature explanations. Doesn't make sense. Physiological theories like parasite/malnutrition burden make sense. The brain diverts energy to organs, etc at the expense of the brain. The brain is the most expensive organ, it takes up 25 percent of daily kcal. This is why disease/malnutrition affect IQ/development, both biologically and nationally.

    Brain size also increased for expertise capacity, not IQ.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/14/brain-size-increased-for-expertise-capacity-not-iq/

    http://www.human-existence.com/publi...ise not IQ.pdf
    Last edited by RaceRealist; 08-24-2017 at 10:58 PM.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,393

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Out of curiosity, how did you find your way to our shit slinging little circle of the internet (not that I'm complaining, it seems you have quite a bit of insight/knowledge to offer)?
    "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."

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Saratoga, NY
    Posts
    912

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zavon View Post
    Out of curiosity, how did you find your way to our shit slinging little circle of the internet (not that I'm complaining, it seems you have quite a bit of insight/knowledge to offer)?
    Shit he's posting stuff I might actually read.

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,393

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrrhus View Post
    Shit he's posting stuff I might actually read.
    Definitely some interesting stuff in there. I have like 7 tabs open now. https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/201...sala-rebuttal/ <--Is basically an explanation for why everyone wants to fuck white women.

    "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."

  6. #81

    Default Re: In the genes?

    I'm browsing some of the articles, the testosterone one is interesting. I'm shocked he still has a twitter account.

    And he links American Renaissance on the website. I like Jared Taylor.

    hwite.

    Do you like basghetti?


    I knew, ever since that day, the reason you had approached me, tender and soft, that my body is to your taste. To your hunger stricken eyes, how does my body seem? If you are to eat me, do it in one blow, so that the meat does not get hard. - Menchi, The Emergency Ration

  7. #82

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aeinna View Post
    I'm browsing some of the articles, the testosterone one is interesting. I'm shocked he still has a twitter account.

    And he links American Renaissance on the website. I like Jared Taylor.

    hwite.
    Jared Taylor's such a genial and well spoken guy it's no wonder he's seldom the person the MSM focuses on.
    "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. #83

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Zavon,

    Out of curiosity, how did you find your way to our shit slinging little circle of the internet (not that I'm complaining, it seems you have quite a bit of insight/knowledge to offer)?
    I saw this thread on my blog referrals.

    Definitely some interesting stuff in there. I have like 7 tabs open now. https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/201...sala-rebuttal/ <--Is basically an explanation for why everyone wants to fuck white women.
    Where did I imply that?

    Aienna,

    I'm browsing some of the articles, the testosterone one is interesting. I'm shocked he still has a twitter account.
    I'm not an altrighter, I don't get into politics. Waste of time. My thing is science. And I like Jared Taylor too. He's too well spoken so they focus on people like Richard Spencer.

    People don't understand testosterone, they think it's "genetic" when there are no "Genes for" testosterone. That's not how testosterone production works in the body. I covered that here and also why testosterone doesn't cause crime.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/201...t-cause-crime/

    People don't understand the hormone. People read and cite Rushton, Lynn, Ellis, et al bullshit. Covered in the r/K article on testosterone and the "r/K continuum" and I wrote about Ellis' new study here.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/201...sterone-crime/

    People think they understand hormones but they really don't. They don't understand physiology either. Rushton and Lynn cited old ass studies with small ns, non representative samples and, the most important part in regards to the oft-cited Ross et all (1986), they assayed the cohort between the hours of 10 am and 3 pm. Testosterone levels are highest at 8 am and to see any abnormalities, assays must be taken near that time.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/201...ostate-cancer/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/201...honor-culture/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/201...-testosterone/

    I'll leave more thoughts on other comments in this thread this afternoon. Is there a lot of race talk here?

  9. #84

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by RaceRealist View Post
    I'll leave more thoughts on other comments in this thread this afternoon. Is there a lot of race talk here?
    Only occasionally, we're a small remnant of what was once a much larger gaming board. We bicker and argue like any group of people that have at least somewhat known each other for 10+ years.
    "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."

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,393

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by RaceRealist View Post
    Zavon,



    I saw this thread on my blog referrals.



    Where did I imply that?

    Is there a lot of race talk here?
    Race comes up occasionally, but really everyone here argues constantly about just about everything. We have just about everyone on the political and autistic spectrum's. The wanting to fuck white women thing was hyperbole, but the following statement inspired it:

    Since men had the food, and the ability to hunt for it for that matter, men had more selection power to select the best possible mates. This led to Eurasian women being selected for beauty, whereas this led to African men being selected for physical attractiveness
    Last edited by Zavon; 08-25-2017 at 02:36 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."

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,193

    Default Re: In the genes?

    So right off the bat I haven't been able to delve very deep into the articles but it seems like there is a lot of semantics and subjectivity in what I've seen reposted to the boards. I'll read further to see if some of my concerns get answered but disease is often times a by product of a lack of progress as a civilization, stemming from everything to a lack of modern medicine, a lack of knowledge of how contagious diseases work, to a lack of hygiene. All 3 being hallmarks of a more intellectual civilization. So my question right out of the gate would be does the study automatically connect low IQ to disease proportion because of their correlation? Does it account for the fact that lower IQ = less civilized society and less civilized society = more vulnerability to disease. Because it seems like to me according to even the most basic history that lower IQ could very closely correlate to greater distribution of diseases rather than the diseases cause the lower IQs. I'd also be curious to know if the need for higher immune function to fight off this over abundance of disease could lead to a bottlenecking/natural selection effect that chooses for lowered brain function for higher immune system function and ends up hereditary. It could may be true that higher immune function causes lower IQ but it could also be true that it's become a hereditary genetic pattern in a population to sacrifice brain function for a more effective immune system.

    Beauty and physical attractiveness are highly subjective and can vary from culture to culture and region to region. So I'm not sure it's an acceptable metric for measurement on such a broad scale as "white versus black" around the globe. I've addressed this before in something that I believe Zavon posted. It's easy to talk evolutionary bullshit because there's so very little tangible science behind it. Every time we see a trait in an organism we can come up with some fantasy about how that trait became a driving force for the species or how it was chosen through natural selection but there's more often than not zero science to back that up. In most instances you can easily flop it around and make an opposite arrangement sound just as logical.

    This is 99% personal experience rather than tangible scientific study but most of the white people I've seen that insinuate athletic or physical superiority among the black demographic were usually skinny little emo white kids or the Metallica fanatics that sat around in their lowered ford rangers with their ball caps turned sideways with the subs in the extended cab instead of ever doing anything physically active. In fact I've got quite a few white friends that had to see me dunk a basketball at 6 foot 4 inches as an old fat fuck to actually believe I did in high school/college at my prime. Which means they're idiots that know nothing about white college athletes lol. But they were the type that I just described, might have played pee wee football at 6 years old and never did a single thing after that and still think they are some kind of at least average example of caucasian athletic potential.
    Last edited by Sillywilly; 08-25-2017 at 04:41 PM.
    "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

  12. #87

    Default Re: In the genes?

    I'd say Richard Spencer is well spoken too and his interviews are always interesting to listen too but I think he is picked over Jared Taylor simply because he is young. I don't think Richard Spencer could ever really be the leader of the alt-right, even if he wanted too.

    What is a blog referral?

    Do you like basghetti?


    I knew, ever since that day, the reason you had approached me, tender and soft, that my body is to your taste. To your hunger stricken eyes, how does my body seem? If you are to eat me, do it in one blow, so that the meat does not get hard. - Menchi, The Emergency Ration

  13. #88

    Default Re: In the genes?

    All this science is making me bored. There is a mountain of evidence to validate a couple of central facts.
    • Races don't have equal intelligence
    • Even correcting for nutrition and other factors you can't make races equally intelligent
    This leads into something else. It's demonstrable that democracies don't work if the average IQ of a nation is below 90; it becomes a corrupt kleptocracy.

    So, the practical consequences of race realism combined with our shifting demographics in the West are what's fundamentally interesting. Race realism is just a predicate piece of knowledge that allows the important conversation to happen. Even without a bunch of scientific studies anyone who has lived among different ethnic groups has a sense of the truth. This truth is also public enemy #1 to both leftists and several sects of christian orthodoxy, because it destroys the statement, "All men are created equal".

    I don't think there are any Biology autists here. Just people who like to argue and are willing to consider unconventional ideas. For a long time now I've been trying to get a couple people to engage in the "practical consequences" part of this conversation, but no amount of data will sway them into the acceptance of race realism that allows that conversation to happen.

    Just by being willing to discuss or blog on this topic you are defacto "far-right", whether you consider yourself political or not.

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

    The conversation I've long wanted to have, and can't seem to, is with liberals and "progressives"; on the practical and political consequences of race realism. Regrettably this conversation seems impossible because once they accept race realism the rest of their ideology evaporates and as such they can no longer convincingly argue from that viewpoint. I'd be happy even with them denying reality and engaging in a thought experiment, but the very idea seems so abhorrent to them this doesn't happen either.
    "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."

  14. #89

    Default Re: In the genes?

    It isn't just practical consequences for black people, it is white people too. I think we've all known our fair share of stupid white people and if they hadn't been ignored while growing up, cuz mah privilege, where would they be? If we just were like, yo stupid people, go to this trade school and you could have a decent job, making decent money, where the hell would this society be now?

    But we gotta ignore dumb whitey who generally just hurts himself and throw money at shit that doesn't work for people who generally like to hurt others. White guilt, ruining everything.

    I would also like to say that our current cultural and political climate is making me a misogynist.
    Last edited by Aeinna; 08-25-2017 at 07:05 PM.

    Do you like basghetti?


    I knew, ever since that day, the reason you had approached me, tender and soft, that my body is to your taste. To your hunger stricken eyes, how does my body seem? If you are to eat me, do it in one blow, so that the meat does not get hard. - Menchi, The Emergency Ration

  15. #90

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Sillywilly,

    So right off the bat I haven't been able to delve very deep into the articles but it seems like there is a lot of semantics and subjectivity in what I've seen reposted to the boards


    Examples?

    I'll read further to see if some of my concerns get answered but disease is often times a by product of a lack of progress as a civilization, stemming from everything to a lack of modern medicine, a lack of knowledge of how contagious diseases work, to a lack of hygiene.


    Herbal remedies are fine.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC527695/

    Hotter climes means more parasites than colder climes. Having parasites is metabolically demanding; a growing human will need to divert energy to brain functioning or organ/vital process functioning in an absence of calories/nutrients. This is well established.

    So my question right out of the gate would be does the study automatically connect low IQ to disease proportion because of their correlation?


    Disease burden had a higher correlation than all others (cold winter, Kanazawa's hypothesis erc). And it makes sense with the physiological explanation behind it. Parasites/disease are metabolically demanding. Combined that with malnutrition and you get ....?

    I'd also be curious to know if the need for higher immune function to fight off this over abundance of disease could lead to a bottlenecking/natural selection effect that chooses for lowered brain function for higher immune system function and ends up hereditary.


    Sounds valid. Though with endemic disease (which is what mostly ravages Africa), it'd be a constant energy drain on an average person.

    It could may be true that higher immune function causes lower IQ but it could also be true that it's become a hereditary genetic pattern in a population to sacrifice brain function for a more effective immune system.


    Does a lower immune function imply a higher IQ? The data shows the opposite. Boosting immunity may make one smarter.

    http://discovermagazine.com/2013/mar...y-intelligence

    Every time we see a trait in an organism we can come up with some fantasy about how that trait became a driving force for the species or how it was chosen through natural selection but there's more often than not zero science to back that up. In most instances you can easily flop it around and make an opposite arrangement sound just as logical.


    I agree. Not everything is an adaptation. People create just-so stories to explain why we have some traits. It's not needed.

  16. Default Re: In the genes?



    I have read through the various links you have posted. They were informative and your treatment of the r\K theory seems convincing. However while reading through your stuff I detected a pattern, I will use the quoted assertion as an example;


    This is not the first time you have asserted that brain size increased expertise capacity and not IQ, and you used the same two links to buttress your point in response each time, as if, with these posting, the science was settled and you could go on to address other arguments. But with something so complex and controversial as IQ the science is never settled and to proceed as if you have definitively proven your point by posting a couple of links to a couple of studies can be problematic.


    "In the last ten years, three meta-analyses on over 100 studies on the relationship between brain size and intelligence have been done. All three showed that the larger a person’s brain is the higher they are likely to score on an IQ test (McDaniel 2005, Rushton and Ankey 2009, and Pietschnig et al 2015). These studies produced correlations ranging from .24 to .40, meaning that a person with a brain size 1 standard deviation above average would, on average, be predicted to have an IQ score .24-.40 standard deviations above average. (Or, put yet another way, brain size explains between 24% and 40% of differences in IQ. No, this is not what r^2 means.)"


    The link goes on to buttress the argument quite convincingly providing not only supporting studies, but answers to common objections, supported by more peer reviewed studies;


    http://thealternativehypothesis.org/...n-size-and-iq/



    This is the only one example that I bothered to look into and provide examples for, but I had the same feeling concerning your arguments several times while reading through your stuff, it is something you might want to be aware of that you are inducing in people that are reading your arguments.
    To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time;
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

  17. #92
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,193

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Random Havoc View Post
    I have read through the various links you have posted. They were informative and your treatment of the r\K theory seems convincing. However while reading through your stuff I detected a pattern, I will use the quoted assertion as an example;


    This is not the first time you have asserted that brain size increased expertise capacity and not IQ, and you used the same two links to buttress your point in response each time, as if, with these posting, the science was settled and you could go on to address other arguments. But with something so complex and controversial as IQ the science is never settled and to proceed as if you have definitively proven your point by posting a couple of links to a couple of studies can be problematic.


    "In the last ten years, three meta-analyses on over 100 studies on the relationship between brain size and intelligence have been done. All three showed that the larger a person’s brain is the higher they are likely to score on an IQ test (McDaniel 2005, Rushton and Ankey 2009, and Pietschnig et al 2015). These studies produced correlations ranging from .24 to .40, meaning that a person with a brain size 1 standard deviation above average would, on average, be predicted to have an IQ score .24-.40 standard deviations above average. (Or, put yet another way, brain size explains between 24% and 40% of differences in IQ. No, this is not what r^2 means.)"


    The link goes on to buttress the argument quite convincingly providing not only supporting studies, but answers to common objections, supported by more peer reviewed studies;

    Quote Originally Posted by Random Havoc View Post
    http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/brain-size-and-iq/



    This is the only one example that I bothered to look into and provide examples for, but I had the same feeling concerning your arguments several times while reading through your stuff, it is something you might want to be aware of that you are inducing in people that are reading your arguments.


    Yeah I'm kinda getting the same thing throughout some of the articles. Not that it's necessarily a bad thing because anything debatable is going to end up being somewhat based on assumption and bias towards certain research to support it's broader conclusion. However in the articles some things are used as givens (for example what constitutes beauty or physical attractiveness) to drive another conclusion.

    "People think they understand hormones but they really don't. They don't understand physiology either."

    Also what's your basis for this accusation? And what is your expertise or experience with hormones and physiology? I'm a career exercise physiologist so I've had everything from 400 level psy classes like physiological psychology to advance Anatomy and Physiology. I CAN somewhat agree with your accusation for the general population but I don't think the general population I'm referring to would be involved enough in a race/genetics debate to even be concerned with properly interpreting hormones, neurotransmitters and their function(s) anyway. I simply don't think their argument would be sophisticated enough to rely on that kind of information.


    Last edited by Zavon; 08-26-2017 at 04:52 PM.
    "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

  18. #93

    Default Re: In the genes?

    WTF happened in this thread when I started working. Who is "Race Realist". Why are they posting in light gray?

    I NEED

    AN ADULT
    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. #94
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,393

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by VKhaun View Post
    WTF happened in this thread when I started working. Who is "Race Realist". Why are they posting in light gray?

    I NEED

    AN ADULT
    Some dude/chick that runs a race difference examination blog that was referred to our thread by an unknown person. I believe the discussion of r/K traits is his or her specialty, and why he or she got involved here.

    The only person that is posting weird colors is Silly, for some unknown reason. I just edited his thread, to see what was going on, and he used some kind of weird color.
    "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."

  20. #95

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by RaceRealist View Post
    Is there a lot of race talk here?
    Quote Originally Posted by Marou View Post
    Only occasionally...
    Quote Originally Posted by Zavon View Post
    Race comes up occasionally...
    They incessantly post anti-black junk, and a few people occasionally attempt to engage.

    This is how we keep in touch between spats of playing the same games.

    Are you actively playing any online games?
    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.

  21. #96

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Random Havoc,

    This is not the first time you have asserted that brain size increased expertise capacity and not IQ, and you used the same two links to buttress your point in response each time, as if, with these posting, the science was settled and you could go on to address other arguments. But with something so complex and controversial as IQ the science is never settled and to proceed as if you have definitively proven your point by posting a couple of links to a couple of studies can be problematic.


    1) Brain size correlates with climate. 2) Climate correlates with tool-use (more tools in the Arctic, fewer tools near the tropics). 3) People in Northern climes needed more expertise to make tools, therefore increasing brain size, while people near the equator made fewer tools and therefore their brain size did not increase as much.

    Now in regards to microcephaly, the fact that microcephalics can have a brain size the size of erectus and still score high on IQ tests shows that large brains aren't needed for high IQs.

    Large brains cause large problems. Further, if brains are larger than a woman needs wider hips to birth a baby with a bigger brain, and therefore running capabilities will be hampered due to selection for a larger brain. Skoyles reviews the literature on microcephalics and finds a good amount of microcephalics have IQs in the normal range, some even above the average range. Further support for this contention can be seen on studies of people with traumatic brain injury (TBI).

    People who have chunks of their brains taken out can still score high on IQ tests and live normal lives. People can have mild-to-severe TBI and still score in the normal range on IQ tests. This is more evidence that brain size did not increase for IQ---and that a large brain is not needed for a high IQ.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/05/17/traumatic-brain-injury-and-iq/

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTA4MC84NzU2NTY0OTUwOTU0MDYyOA==/10.1080%4087565649509540628.pdf

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2077538/

    Even then, in this one study, (Google it, the link doesn't work there is a PDF available; Brain development, gender and IQ in children: A volumetric imaging study.) a sharp decrease begins after IQ 120 in regards to brain size.

    The link goes on to buttress the argument quite convincingly providing not only supporting studies, but answers to common objections, supported by more peer reviewed studies;


    I am aware of that piece. Doesn't change my mind, same old arguments. Skoyles uses the upper limit of .5 brain size/IQ correlation to still show that 75 percent of that variation would still need explaining, that is, 25 percent of the variation in brain size would be explained by IQ, therefore there is plenty of room for other explanations.

    I have a problem with that 'Francis' author on TAH. He doesn't really read studies it seems to me (as I've pointed out here https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/201...-testosterone/)

    In regards to men vs. women in brain size, I don't use those args. Mine are much more intricate than that.

    In regards to the brain/body size args presented in the AH article, the numerology fallacy is apt here:

    Numerology fallacies are apparent correlations that turn out to be artifacts of numerical oversimplification. Numerology fallacies in science, like their mystical counterparts, are likely to be committed when meaning is ascribed to some statistic merely by virtue of its numeric similarity to some other statistic, without supportive evidence from the empirical system that is being described (Deacon, 1991b: 201)

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAwNy9iZjAyMTkyODY5/10.1007%40bf02192869.pdf

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMjMwNy8zODgzNTUy/10.2307%403883552.pdf

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAxNy9z...5x00078250.pdf

    Larger brains wouldn't be expected to increase cog competence because larger brains are associates with larger neurons and more myleniated axons.

    All in all, the evidence points to the fact that brain size is not too important to IQ, from the studies on microcephalics, to TBI and brain size/IQ decreasing after a certain point. This, in my opinion, proves that brain size is largely meaningless to IQ. The AH article is well-researched but still does not sway me. I used to believe all the brain size nonsense.

    Sillywilly,

    However in the articles some things are used as givens (for example what constitutes beauty or physical attractiveness) to drive another conclusion.


    Tons of data on this. Light skin is correlated with attractiveness. However I've repudiated my articles on testosterone/attractiveness in regards to blacks.

    Also what's your basis for this accusation?


    Seeing what people write about it. Here's a good example.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...n-making#img-1

    Horrible conclusion here. People just hear the media and assume that high T equals high aggression/crime, but I've shown that to be a faulty assumption.

    And what is your expertise or experience with hormones and physiology?
    Reading articles about T and aggression around the Internet. I see people talking about 'genes for' testosterone when testosterone is indirectly produced by DNA.

    I CAN somewhat agree with your accusation for the general population but I don't think the general population I'm referring to would be involved enough in a race/genetics debate to even be concerned with properly interpreting hormones, neurotransmitters and their function(s) anyway. I simply don't think their argument would be sophisticated enough to rely on that kind of information.


    This even extends to the blog-o-sphere on the Internet. My article above shows how people don't understand the hormone.
    Last edited by RaceRealist; 08-26-2017 at 06:52 PM.

  22. Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by RaceRealist View Post


    I am aware of that piece. Doesn't change my mind...

    Well ok, everyone is welcome to their opinion, of course, but that piece seemed more compelling than the few tangentially pertinent studies you linked to support your assertion. Maybe you're right, maybe the authors of those 100 studies, those who did the meta-analyses, and/or the author of the AH piece are all being fooled by some 'numerology fallacy', but in my opinion they seemed more compelling. That is the thing about the internet, everyone can have their opinion and find supporting studies to justify their beliefs, post hoc.

    The question of brain size as it relates to IQ is really a moot point, I was merely using it to illustrate the reaction I had when reading through your stuff, the feeling of you presenting your opinion as settled fact.
    Last edited by Random Havoc; 08-28-2017 at 12:51 AM.
    To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time;
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

  23. #98
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,393

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by VKhaun View Post
    They incessantly post anti-black junk, and a few people occasionally attempt to engage.

    This is how we keep in touch between spats of playing the same games.

    Are you actively playing any online games?
    "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. #99
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,193

    Default Re: In the genes?

    http://movieweb.com/john-boyega-carn...ars-last-jedi/

    You see it doesn't matter what your job or what your accent is when it's in your genes lol. This is that negro grinder shit. They even get their 6 year olds to do it. I'm sure you guys have seen the videos?
    "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

  25. #100
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Saratoga, NY
    Posts
    912

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sillywilly View Post
    http://movieweb.com/john-boyega-carn...ars-last-jedi/

    You see it doesn't matter what your job or what your accent is when it's in your genes lol. This is that negro grinder shit. They even get their 6 year olds to do it. I'm sure you guys have seen the videos?
    I mean... okay? But in this article you are essentially agreeing with Feminazi's that he is somehow 'degrading' women by grinding up against them when they're already wearing thong bikini's and pasties (assumption).

Posting Permissions

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